The shifting crusts and volcanic eruptions, oscillations of solar activity on multi-Decadal to Centennial and Millennial time scales with variations in gamma radiation and the role of the big planets, Saturn and Jupiter — and a changing North Pole and variations in the magnetosphere — all are a part of a holistic process that is the Earth’s climate.

Both groups were right – http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2339 – but unable to cooperate for the benefit of society after vaporization of Hiroshima on 6 July 1945 fused politics and science together as tightly as religion and science had been fused together at the time of Copernicus and Galileo.

We’ve what an American-deficiency causes. Look at Iran since 1979… the people there lost their freedom. Europe turned away from Americanism. How’s that going for them? Leftists and the MSM carried a pogrom out against George Bush for eight years. Look what has happened to the country… division, a liberal fascism.

This will, again, lead to record Arctic Ocean Effect Snow in the fall, winter and spring. The end is near for earth getting much warmer on this warming cycle. This powerful negative feedback to warmer temperatures will cool us again until it allows the Arctic to freeze and cut off the Arctic Ocean Effect Snow.
If the Arctic could again get ice free, we would have the level of snow that created the major ice ages. The current level of stability is such that we cannot get that warm. We are strongly limited to the temperature range that we have had for the past ten thousand years. Warm Oceans and open Arctic is a necessary part of the well bounded cycle of warm and cold that humans have enjoyed during the past ten thousand years. Ice does retreat in the cold times and Ice is replenished in the warm times. Look at the weather around the Northern Hemisphere right now.

I would agree with more snow in fall, but by December or so, sea ice area levels are already “recovered” to about a million square to “normal” and I would not expect much increased snow in January, February or even spring.

“This is the first study to analyze historical trends of jet stream properties based on the ERA-40 and the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis datasets for the period 1979 to 2001. We defined jet stream properties based on mass and mass-flux weighted averages. We found that, in general, the jet streams have risen in altitude and moved poleward in both hemispheres.”

“At this point we can’t say for sure that this is the result of global
warming, but I think it is,” says Caldeira. “I would bet that the trend
in the jet streams’ positions will continue. It is something I’d put my
money on.”

With all the snow that is falling and with all the snow that has already fallen in the U.S., Earthweek went all the way to Moscow to get a small snow story that does not come up on their website. It was in the printed newspaper.
I clicked on the Moscow story and did get the Greenhouse Emissions Story.
They do avoid cold and snow stories because that is not consistent with their Alarmist Warmest Policies.http://www.earthweek.com/
This was supposed to be the Snow in Moscow Story.http://www.earthweek.com/2013/ew130208/ew130208a.html
Click quick or they may fix the mistake.
You can look at the ice core data and by simple inspection you can see the it does snow more when oceans are warm and then earth cools.http://popesclimatetheory.com/page11.html

Here it is well into February and the snow is still falling in historic proportions. It is snowing more because the oceans are warmer. That is the reason Earth cannot get too hot. It snows less when oceans are cold and frozen and that is why Earth cannot get too cold.

And then they have the story below that says that polar bears are going to starve because earth is going to get too warm. That is opinion. The three stories above are fact. What are you going to believe? Is life is more abundant and is food for bears more available when it is warm or when it is cold?

When it is warm and the oceans are open is when it snows to bring the next cold period. The oceans are warm and the snow is falling. Warm ocean time is a normal and natural part of a well bounded cycle.
I am pleased to see that Earthweek actually does some snow and cold stories, but their starving polar bear story is not believable along with the other three stories.

Last weekend, I had an interesting discussion with Steven Mosher, Andrew Adams and Jim D. Just when the dialogue was getting interesting, one by one they disappeared from the topic. Which was a pity.

My point is that because it is impossible to measure radiative forcing or climate sensitivity, the IPCC has no scientific basis on which to base their statements in the SPMs that there are probabilities of >90% or >95% that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes effects, such as a rise in global temperature.

Jim D. indicated that there was such a basis, but I would like to read what the IPCC actually says about this. It is essential in scientific reports that any conclusions reached must be justified in the body of the report. So, presumably, these scientific reasons for the statements in the SPMs are somewhere in the AR4; and more specificly, in the AR5, since the draft indicates that the same sort of claims will be made when the new SPMs are agreed.

I cannot find this in either the AR4 or the draft of the A5. This does no mean it is not there; it may be that I am looking in the wrong place. Can anyone help me, and direct to me where in the AR4 or AR5, the IPCC justifies the probabilites it mentions in the SPMs?

Jim D you write “Are you looking for a basis that changing CO2 changes radiative forcing, or that changing radiative forcing causes a temperature change?”

Neither. I am looking, as I have clearly stated, for the scientific basis, written in either or both the AR4 and AR5, on which the IPCC claims in the SPMs, that there is a >90% or >95 % probability that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global temperatyres to rise, or whatever the exact wording is.

Jim Cripwell, the WG1 report entitled “The Physical Science Basis” is the scientific basis you asked for, as you may be able to tell from its title. It is 1000 pages with references. Now, you may want a condensed climate-science-for-kids version with lots of pictures and no long words or references to look up, but there is no shortcut to reading about the science if you are really interested in it.

He didn’t say there was no scientific basis. He said it was impossible to measure sensitivty or radiative forcing. Impossible is word best avoided but sensitivity hasn’t been measured yet because you first have to somehow control for CO2 and that might never be accomplished. We don’t have an instrument network that can measure radiative forcing 24/7 across the globe like we do average temperature of kilometers long column sections in the atmosphere.

You go to war with the instruments you have not the instruments you wish you had. Don’t make claims that your instruments can’t back up.

Fair enough, and I cannot disagree with you. I am blind to the evidence; but that is because I cannot find it. It MUST be in the AR 4, or else the AR 4 is not a work of science. Scientific reports MUST justify EVERYTHING that is in the conclusions. So, I want to read what the IPCC has written on the subject, and then my eyes will be open, and I will no longer be blind. But I cannot find WHERE the IPCC has written up the justification, and that is why I am asking for help from people like yourself who should know where I ought to be looking.

Max, I think Mosher is confusing Tyndall with greenhouse with AGW. The “scientific basis” is for the Tyndall effect, which really isn’t in controversy. Getting from there to AGW and then to CAGW takes some serious gymnastics.

hes been directed to the evidence many times, as have the rest of you. empirical evidence. empirical measurements. To say otherwise is akin to arguing that black is white and white is black. That is what his argument amounts to he asks for evidence and measurement. I’ve pointed him at it many times and he and you pretend otherwise. I see no point in continuing. he asked. I delivered. done

hes been directed to the evidence many times, as have the rest of you.

Where?

Where is the evidence summarised, top down, like engineering documentation. like it has to be for a court case, and for informing policy decisions?

AR4 and AR5 are largely political, activist, spin. They are not what is required for an objective documentation of the evidence. So, if not them, then where is the evidence documented? What are you referring to?

There are a lot of words in the 1000+ AR4 WG1 report, but none of these words cite specific empirical evidence that would corroborate the notion that adding hundreds of ppmv of CO2 to the atmosphere would result in a perceptible increase in global temperature.

It’s just not there. It’s all model stuff (which is NOT empirical evidence).

And simply saying that it is there will not make it so.

Point to the page, which cites specific empirical evidence (i.e. from actual real-time physical observations or reproducible experimentation).

Look the evidence has been pointed out to Cripwell on so many occasions that you have to be blind to miss it. So go look for it.

1. The empirical evidence for the addition Forcing that GHGs impose.
He’s been directed to the the physical theory. he’s been directed to
to the practical applications. he’s been directed to the validation studies
and the field experiements. There is no evidence that he read any of it.

2. The empirical evidence for the change in temperature over time. Delta C.
3. the empirical evidence for the change in forcing over time. Delta Watts.

he’s been given the definition of sensitivity; delta C / delta watts.
What he seems to be stuck on is the notion that sensitivity is something you can measure directly. A simple example: take the speed of sound.
The speed of sound is x feet per second. We measure the feet, we measure the time. And we say the speed of sound is X feet per second.
We dont directly measure ‘speed’. its a ratio of two other metrics. distance and time. Sensitivity is the change in C per a change in watts.

You measure Delta C: you measure delta Watts. and there you go.
we measure sensitivity all the time. Now it happens to be complicated because you can measure it over short times and longer times. And its complicated because the accuracy of measures can be narrow or broad depending on your time scale. But that does not mean it hasnt been measured. You play golf, you hit a big drive. you take 300 strides to reach your ball, you’ve measured the distance. You could have used a yardstick, or range finder, or GPS or a mark 2 eyeball. In all cases you measured it. Sometimes with more accuracy, sometimes with less. never with perfect accuracy.

So, we have measured sensitivity. Every measurement of it tells us that Jim is wrong. Its not zero.

he is also wrong that it must be in Ar4. That is not what I directed him to, so he is once again blind. his intellect is indistinguishable from zero.

JimD, my impression in 2009 was that Jim was attached to the starting line with a piece of elastic. You’d get so far with him then…ping!…back to: “It’s not science because it’s not testable…” etc. Maybe the elastic has got shorter and tauter since then.

I would like to invite you to participate in an online debate and questionnaire designed to gather information about public’s awareness, perceptions and opinions on geoengineering.
Your participation would be of great value to our research.
Details of the project (as well as the guidelines for participating) can be found in the Geoengineering Debate Website https://sites.google.com/site/geoengineeringdebate/
Thank you very much for your participation.

To change climate by goeengineering is the stupidest idea in the history of science. It is dumb. First understand the climate as you understand Newton Laws. We have not yet reached there. The climate is extremely complex. We cannot predict El Nino. We cannot predict La Nina. We don’t know what causes the warming and cooling 60 year cycles.

It is a pure waste of time. Do something productive. Produce food. Produce shelter. Produce what people need everyday. Don’t waste resources in fixing a problem that does not exist. The globe warms. The globe cools. It does need to be at constant temperature.

Girma, Kim, Wagathon, Faustino,
Define “constant temperature,” for God’s sake!
Given that life has existed on Earth for billions of years, one can assume that its temperature remained within the living range all of this time. So, thinking of the temperature range existing in the universe, I’d still say it can be considered quite constant, after all. Don’t you?

I agree that geoengineering is a dumb idea. But do you think that your above opinion is smarter?

Everything seems “extremely complex” until you get how it works. Then, you have this AHA moment and wonder why didn’t you think of this before.
Once the real forcing mechanisms are assessed, global climate proves to have a simple and coherent behavior. It puzzled everybody for so many years because climate change has a 60-year cycle with two patterns, not just with one. Plus, everybody looks at the warming phases, when in reality they are constant with 0.48C over 30 years. The actual warming occurs during warming bumps within the cooling phases, where nobody looks.

I dare you to continue to think “The climate is extremely complex” after you get the whole explanation at the Convergetics blog.

Gene @ 7.42: I made no comment on constancy of temperature. Since Girma said that “The globe warms. The globe cools,” I thought that he had missed a “not” from “It does need to be at constant temperature.”

As a non-scientist, it seems to be that the relatively modest variation in global temperatures over many millions of years suggests that there are moderating factors in play which tend to constrain it to this range, and that until we fully understand these mechanisms, we shouldn’t endeavour to direct them. And probably not even then.

I’d second the perceptions and opinions expressed here, i.e. that attempts to “geoengineer” our planet’s climate are a waste of time and money (actionable proposals made so far show that we are unable to really change our planet’s climate at will, no matter how much money we throw at it).

In addition, we have no notion of the unforeseen negative consequences of these “geoengineering” actions.

Each GE scheme should be accompanied by a robust cost/benefit analysis with a complete due diligence report on any unforeseen negative consequences that could conceivably occur.

Only if the cost/benefit analysis shows an unequivocal advantage and if there are absolutely no conceivable unforeseen negative consequences, should one even discuss geoengineering.

Bob Tisdale counters on WUWT: “It’s difficult to claim the recent increases in manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for the warm sea surface temperatures off the New England coast, when the those values were regularly exceeded 70 to 80 years ago.

Alarmists will take any opportunity to claim manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for weather events, such as Hurricane Sandy, and now the upcoming New England Blizzard. It’s often easy to illustrate the errors in their claims. Another example is the Russian heat wave of 2010 which Trenberth and Fasullo tried (and failed) to attribute to the warming of sea surface temperatures. Refer to the post here.

Alarmists, of course, will continue to make unfounded claims, and I will be happy to show how ridiculous those claims are.”

Spot Tisdale’s logical fallacy:
“Anyone who has followed my posts over the past 4 years about the natural warming of satellite-era sea surface temperatures understands there is nothing in the data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming. That is, the data indicates Mother Nature, not manmade greenhouse gases, was responsible for the warming over the past 31 years.”

“there is nothing in the data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming. That is, the data indicates Mother Nature, not manmade greenhouse gases, was responsible for the warming over the past 31 years.””

The logical error Tisdale is making in the above text is arguing that the lack of indication in the data for X means X isn’t true.

That doesn’t logically follow.

Climate skeptics of all people should know this. If I said Lack of mechanism for the Sun to explain recent warming would that ring a bell? Does “nothing in the data to indicate that the Sun played any part in the warming” mean the Sun had no role? (interestingly Tisdale’s analysis would surely say Yes it had no role because I bet he can’t find a solar indicator in the sea temperature data anymore than he can find GHG indicator.

Which brings me to the general overarching error Tisdale makes in his “it’s ENSO, not GHGs” argument. He claims “nothing in the data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming” but that begs the question what *is* Tisdale expecting manmade greenhouse gas warming to look like in the data?

From what I can tell he expects something like a simplistic gradual and constant warming across all regions. If he doesn’t find that, or finds some kind of pattern correlation with ENSO, then he immediately jumps the the conclusion ENSO did it and GHGs are not responsible (and supposedly the Sun too).

But who is to say regional warming patterns caused by global GHG warming (or solar warming) wouldn’t be complicated with different regions warming at different rates because the nature of a planet warming involves a flow of energy and GHGs (and the Sun) are just part of that?

There is the absurdity too. Is Tisdale really arguing the rise in GHGs had no warming effect whatsoever? Is he a skydragon?

lolwot 2/8/13 2:28 pm
Just so. The only warming within the last 33 years was a step warming introduced by the super El Nino of 1998. Its cause was the huge amount of warm water this super El Nino carried across the ocean. It raised global temperature by a third of a degree in four years and then stopped. This, and not some imaginary greenhouse effect, was the cause of the very warm first decade of our century. The nine warmest years of Hansen sit on top of the warm platform created by this step warming but there has been no warming during these years at all. He is also delusional about 2005 being warmest – it is just average. His other warmest year is 2010 which is an El Nino peak year. He shows it warmer than 1998 which is another delusion. He tries to use these two years to claim warming in the 21st century but it does not work like that. Global mean temperature of ENSO oscillations is determined by the center point between an El Nino peak and its neighboring La Nina valley. The center point of the El Nino of 2010 and the La Nina of 2009 lines up perfectly with the rest of the sixteen year no-warming platform of the twenty first century.

Using Tisdale’s own method there is no solar signal in the data. I’ve seen his graphs of ocean temperature sloshing and it doesn’t exhibit a solar signal.

So according to you we should conclude from this that the Sun had no role in the recent warming. And to cover over the obviously logical fallacy all we have to do is use some BS excuse about null hypothesis = Sun didn’t do it. In other words unless TIsdale’s method can find a solar signal we are justified in concluding (and I mean concluding, there seems to be no sense of uncertainty here) that the Sun played NO role in recent warming.

Someone page Scafeta and tell him he’s wasted all his time. All he had to do was look at ocean temperatures…

Perhaps in this context of the lovable Sun, where you aren’t blinded by hate of all things IPCC, you might “get” why Tisdale’s argument is logically flawed.

I have asked you to show me the empirical evidence for a perceptible CO2 signal in the past temperature record.

You are apparently unable to do this, but respond with:

So you think rising CO2 causes ZERO warming?

So you are a skydragon? You don’t accept the greenhouse effect?

The hypothesis of the “greenhouse effect” is great, and I can “accept” this hypothesis based on the empirical data which show CO2 absorption of LW energy. But these data do not provide empirical evidence that increased ppms of CO2 in our atmosphere will actually lead to perceptible global warming of our climate.

And the empirical evidence do not show a real correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, but rather a cyclical temperature record with 30-year warming and cooling cycles superimposed on an overall warming of 0.75C since 1853 :

Atmospheric CO2 was pretty flat until after WWII and has increased at a fairly constant exponential rate of 0.4-0.5% per year since measurements started at Mauna Loa in 1958. The most recent decade has the largest increase in atmospheric CO2, but slight cooling instead of warming.

So there is no apparent empirical correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.

It is quite apparent to me from the data at hand that something else beside human GHG emissions is driving our climate.

““It’s difficult to claim the recent increases in manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for the warm sea surface temperatures off the New England coast, when the those values were regularly exceeded 70 to 80 years ago.”

Its easy.
Since the temperature is a result of BOTH GHGs and internal variation, its dead simple to see that over short terms
1. GHG + natural varition >0 OR
2 GHG = natural variation <0

The value is time dependent. So early with natural variation high and GHGs lower, and later with GHG high and natural variation low can look like the same thing, however, over many cycles of natural variation the underlying GHG signal becomes clear

Steven Mosher | February 8, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
I have to tell you that ocean temperatures off the New England coast have nothing to do with GHG but are determined by the changing flow pattern of the Gulf Stream. There is no doubt that it has changed over the last century because ocean currents started to bring warm water into the Arctic at the turn of the twentieth century, and the only source of warm water in the North Atlantic is the Gulf Stream. This is important because warm water reaching the Arctic today is the only reason why the Arctic is still warming while the rest of the world is not. Some of those billions used for climate research should be dedicated to closely tracking currents in the North Atlantic because it is not just the Arctic but the climate of Europe that depends on this.

I would agree with that view, but given that the increase of global SST since the previous cyclical high in the 1940s is only 0.3K (and only 0.2K without the overwriting of meta data), this “signal” can be discarded.

You answer a statement that “It’s difficult to claim the recent increases in manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for the warm sea surface temperatures off the New England coast” with the statement:

Since the temperature is a result of BOTH GHGs and internal variation…

Huh?

That’s a hollow statement, Mosh, based on a leap of faith. What empirical evidence can you cite that demonstrates that it was not ALL a result of internal variation (and forcing)?

The only warming within the last 33 years was a step warming introduced by the super El Nino of 1998. Its cause was the huge amount of warm water this super El Nino carried across the ocean. It raised global temperature by a third of a degree in four years and then stopped.

Given that many of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last decade, I have a hard time understanding why one discrete event caused a “step change” in temperatures. How did that El Nino change the global climate so that afterwards, temperatures remained on average warmer than they had been previously?

Joshua | February 8, 2013 at 8:54 pm
Glad you brought up that point because I have to explain some skulduggery. First, my analysis of satellite temperatures shows that from 1979 to 1997 there were a series of global ENSO oscillations, El Ninos alternating with La Ninas, while the mean temperature did not change for 18 years. This was published in my book in 2010 but is universally ignored. Instead of a temperature standstill in the eighties and nineties what is shown is a phony “late twentieth century warming” which does not exist. At the end of this period the super El Nino of 1998 appeared. It really was super, and its temperature peak was twice as high as any El Ninos that preceded it. Like I said, it brought so much warm water across the ocean that a step warming followed. This, and not an imaginary greenhouse warming is the cause of the very warm first decade of our century. There was no more warming after the step warming was over and that lack of warming has lasted from that time until today. Met Office figures it sixteen years and from satellites I count at least twelve. Hansen counts as many as nine record years there and wants to leave the impression that global warming is responsible. In actual fact those years are warm because they sit on the high platform created by that step warming, not because of any warming since. But he is not satisfied with that and includes two totally phony high points – 2005 and 2010 – to prove that warming is continuing. 2005 is a total fabrication and is indistinguishable from other years around it. 2010 is the peak year of the 2010 El Nino. It is high but he has a nerve to show it higher than 1998 which is a lie. The mean temperature of the ENSO oscillation is determined by the midpoint between an El Nino peak and its neighboring La Nina valley. It so happens that the midpoint of the 2010 El Nino and the 2008 La Nina lines up exactly with the no-warming temperature level of the twenty-first century, confirming that we are still in a no-warming mode. As to how a singular event could have such large consequences, at the moment that is just an empirical observation. There are some facts but they are only a partial explanation. First, I did not expect the high temperature level to persist but it seems to have become permanent. Second is that this super El Nino is an outlier, something that is rare, that you might see only once in a century. Checking some older records a possibly similar one could have happened in 1877 but I have no information about it. Thirdly, we do know that El Ninos cross the ocean from west to east along the equatorial countercurrent, run ashore in South America, spread out along the coast north and south, and warm the air above. The warming is due to the fact that the water they carry comes from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, the warmest water on earth. But what sets it apart is its size and I had a hard time explaining where its energy comes from. I had some weird thoughts but now I favor a storm surge that coincided with a regular El Nino wave. I could be wrong of course and some of those billions budgeted for climate research ought to be applied to this problem. This is actually not the only step warming we know about – there was another one in 1976 which was associated with the phase change of the PDO. Together they account for almost all temperature rise since the seventies, leaving nothing for the greenhouse warming to do. To get the full information, get my book. It is called “What Warming?” and Amazon has it.

In actual fact those years are warm because they sit on the high platform created by that step warming, not because of any warming since. …. First, I did not expect the high temperature level to persist but it seems to have become permanent.

I am, being skeptical in nature, dubious of causal explanations for observed phenomena if they aren’t at least accompanied by plausible explanations (even if those explanations are not “proven”). We tend to find the associations and correlations that confirm our biases. One way to control for bias confirmation is to offer mechanistic explanations for those associations and then test the mechanistic explanations.

Now certainly, we can find associations that disconfirm certain hypotheses even if we can not find associated and tested mechanisms that confirm alternative hypotheses. But that a lack of sound mechanistic explanations leaves a lot open.

For example, I can certainly see where it would be theoretically possible to show that the only warming that occurred is that which is associated with a “step,” and that no other warming is present. I’m not sure that you’ve reached that bar, but even if you have, you would have to provide a plausible mechanistic explanation to show that AGW and “step changes” in temperature are mutually exclusive. Perhaps there are ways that increased buildup of CO2 causes warming that manifests as “steps changes.”

At any rate, w/o any plausible explanation for why discrete phenomena would cause a persistent change of state (rather than a temporary change that ends once those discrete phenomena are over and done with), I’m left being skeptical about your theory.

Joshua | February 9, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Don’t worry about your technical background, just use your brain. Those phenomena that you are dubious about are experimental observations and they can’t be questioned. You are right to demand an explanation but unfortunately all these high-powered “climate” scientists who are swimming in research money refuse to take notice of what I say. Apparently they think that “denialist” science should not get any kind of publicity, good or bad. The step warming is of course bad for them and not likely to support their theories of warming. They have a huge research effort but it either goes to proving that AGW exists or for circumstantial observations of the effects of their alleged warming. Despite years of these efforts they have yet to come up with a breakthrough that proves AGW. Their research is world wide and is extremely well funded. Hansen of NASA, for example, controls more than a billion dollars that Uncle Sam gives him as research money. I introduced several other important concepts in my book that also should be further investigated. The fact that there was no warming in the eighties and nineties is one example I mentioned before. It goes against Hansen’s claim in 1988 that AGW had started. As I mentioned previously global mean temperature did not change for 18 years. I determined it by putting dots at the midpoints of El Nino peaks and La Nina valleys as I described and then connected the points. This gave me a straight horizontal line. I had previously applied the same technique to GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 temperature curves, both of which show the same peaks and valleys as the satellites do. In both cases, connecting the points gave a straight line sloping up which indicates warming. I knew it was a phony warming but they both were peddling it as fact. Until last fall, that is, when the new issues of GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 datasets became available. As of August 8th for GISTEMP and September 29th for HadCRUT3 their global mean temperature in the eighties and nineties has miraculously become a horizontal straight line, just like the satellites show. There was no announcement and nobody would know it if they did not use my technique of determining the mean that I outlined above. Must be that somebody knew about my book and got cold feet about what they were doing with temperature. Clearly the ability to make such sophisticated changes to the record implies that they did know about it. It is also a cross-ocean coordinated action which widens the scope for the original phony data source. As to showing that step warming is the only possible warming, this is not my claim. I only said that this goes back to the seventies. In the early part of the twentieth century there was a steady period of warming that started suddenly in 1910 and ended equally suddenly in 1940. There was no sudden increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1910 which rules out the greenhouse effect as a cause. Furthermore, it is quite impossible for greenhouse effect to stop as suddenly as it did in 1940. What happened in 1940 was the beginning of the severe cooling associated with World War II. Its aftereffects continued after the war and the next real warming did not begin until 1976, as I mentioned. The likelihood is that the early century warming had a solar origin. As to the greenhouse effect that is supposed to be the cause of AGW, it does not exist. Ferenc Miskolczi showed in 2010 that atmospheric absorption of long-wave radiation was constant for 61 years while the amount of carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent. This substantial amount of carbon dioxide did not increase the absorption of radiation by one whit. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed

I notice that Arno Arrak is directly contracting the skeptic claim that global warming stopped in 1997. According to him it never started. Just one step jump in 1997-1998.

I also notice the interjection by lorne50 above, who (probably unknowingly) contradicts arno arrack. Lorne50 admits there was a warming over the period 1970 to 1998. Ie not simply a step change in 1997-1998 as Arno Arrak (wrongly) claims.

Arno claims: “First, my analysis of satellite temperatures shows that from 1979 to 1997 there were a series of global ENSO oscillations, El Ninos alternating with La Ninas, while the mean temperature did not change for 18 years”

Arno claims the “mean temperature did not change”, ie he’s claiming a precise value of 0C/decade. Yet the data does not support such a precise value. Arno has ignored the uncertainty in the data, uncertainty which includes for high rates of warming (eg as much as 0.216C/decade warming over the period).

It just struck me that Arno’s claim about no warming in the 80s and 90s (except one jump in 1997/1998) contradicts skeptic claims that high solar output of the late 20th century caused the warming in recent decades.

Because Arno is arguing there WAS NO warming in recent decades, just a large jump in 1997/1998, which runs contrary to an expectation of gradual warming expected from elevated solar output, which must surely be an expectation of HIS given he expects likewise nothing but a gradual warming from elevated CO2.

But did solar output spike upwards in 1997/1998? No. So Arno must be arguing the Sun had no role in any of the warming since 1970.

It’s funny how skeptics manage to keep these conflicts hidden from sight. You see the Tisdales, Arnos and Scafetas attacking CO2 as a cause, but you never see them attack each other’s claims.

You never read something like this on WUWT:
“The problem with the Sun causing any warming since 1970 is that we’d expect GRADUAL warming from a warmer Sun, but there was no gradual warming, just a single spike in 1997/1988.”

You NEVER see that kind of argument, because it’s not in their interest to come up with it and deploy it. It’s all about attacking “IPCC” ideas, discrediting each others doesn’t help that.

Politicians of course wish to continue funding climate change alarmism but even the New York Times apparently has better things to do with its dollars than continue to parrot the hysterical ravings of government climate change toadies and summarily closed down its environment desk in January. Some call it a shame. Some call it a scam. Hell, the whole damn scam is a shame.

I share your anger, but as a liberal democrat I have an extra burden to haul around…shame and embarrassment. With respect to global warming, I think of the NYT’s, as a fortress of ignorance and elitism which eventually must be stormed, like the Bastille in 1789. That will be a day to celebrate.

I think it is a bigger shame that the liberal democrats spent 8 years demonizing George Bush for doing nothing more than standing up for America with his whole heart and standing. It was GW who stood up to the UN and the superstitious crowd and the purveyors of fear from the Left like that lone Chinaman facing the tanks in Tiananmen square with nothing but the courage in his heart to exercise free will, represent the unrepresented, and to oppose the mindless conformity of the Climatists that had been chosen at that point in time in the evolution of society to try to run the board.

Ah wag, I respect you, but I have to thank you for once again reminding me why I am who I am, politically speaking. If GWB did something good, it was totally by accident. BUt why fight, we were getting along so well…

Just a little lesson in basic logic. If I say that I love “you guys,” it would not mean that I love “ethnic slurs.” “Slurs” ≠ “guys.” “Guys” ≠ “slurs.”

i love Judith’s fanatically rightwing “denizens” because they are so laughably clueless that they unknowingly discredit themselves through the use of terms like “chinaman” (and through making inane arguments such as we’d have to talk to someone who has both lived as a free person in the inner city and a slave to understand whether anyone rational would choose to give up their individual freedom and basic civil rights in order to live like “well-cared for” dogs).

I searched the WG1 portion of AR4 (using the ‘find’ function in Adobe Reader, 989 pages or so) to locate the documentation for ‘90%’ and ‘very likely’, as stated in the SPM. There is no documentation — no set of details justifying that particular probability and eliminating others. I suspect many non-climate scientists think the claim is a formal confidence interval. No wonder there is such a wide range in public opinion.

Suholt, you write “no set of details justifying that particular probability and eliminating others.“

Thank you very much indeed. That is what I suspected. But the warmists will never agree that the IPCC report could be so fatally flawed.

But the larger issue is that similar claims are in the draft of the AR 5. Should we not be clamoring for these statements to be taken out of the AR 5 since they are completely unscientific. And they shouild be removed BEFORE the IPCC mounts it`s publicity campaign after it has got international agreement on the SPMs of the AR 5.

I wouldn’t worry much about it at this point, Jim. The catastrophic global warming hypothesis is on life support and the prognosis for recovery is not good. Another few years of pause and she’s dead, Jim.

“The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming.”

Afraid not David, don’t watch TV except for live sport and current affairs. Too much advertising and too many media agendas (even in current affairs).

Like what you post David, shows a very strong intellect and a gift with words. Someone said recently that you are like a laser beam but I lean towards the illumination of a searchlight, more coverage that way.

lw, I’ve never clicked on one of your links for fear of going bind, but if that’s about January of this year being in the top few for warmth, that’s a pretty slim reed… given no additional warming in the last 16 years. Tell you what though, when we start seeing actual cooling month to month and you insist it doesn’t mean anything, I’ll remind you of your post.

That’s an interesting link. All I would add is that the US ~2% of the Earth’s surface, and this is a sample from just 7 monitoring stations. Stranger still is the apparent lack of effects on climate indicators.

Yes BBD. The laws of physics as you understand them may be different in restricted locations such as those 7 peculiar weather stations located within the 2% of earth’s landmass taken up by the United States. Possibly extra terrestrials who can do anti-gravity and make endless energy from crystals and pyramids and whatnot broke out of Area 51 and took up residence at those weather stations just to mess with our heads. Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket!

I said it was an interesting study, but given the extremely coarse sampling over a tiny fraction of the Earth’s surface and the *absence* of any effect on climate indicators, there isn’t much else we can say.

You’re just cross because every time you and I have a discussion about climate you get shown up as a know-nothing. Only you can fix that. How about actually reading some of those university-level textbooks you think are the only permissible references here?

Does anyone here have a hypothesis that explains how the surface can be receiving more downwelling energy yet not increase in temperature?

I seem to recall someone who has a wacky notion that if there’s water available to evaporate on the surface then the increased energy is taken up as latent heat of vaporization and transported to the cloud deck. The fellow also says that the cloud deck should rise in response about 100 meters per CO2 doubling.

A big reduction in cloud cover over land can’t be cause for comfort, especially with specific humidity decreasing.
On a detail in the paper, they say 30 ppm CO2 is only 0.14 W/m2, where I think it is more like 0.4 W/m2. I don’t know why they think it should be so small.

I don’t omit things for lack of care. There’s a limit to how much sleep & exercise I will sacrifice for volunteer work. Long-term, sufficient, guaranteed-secure pay & pension is the only thing that could potentially free me of Pareto Principle operations.

By the way — a substantial announcement:
I’ve just confirmed and extended this. Gravely serious parties capable of going against the mainstream grain to help correct its fundamental misdirection: you will find clean, painfully beautiful results if you extend this to the semi-annual timescale. (More details as scarce time/resources permit…)

“The body is not so good at detecting low levels of oxygen but is really good at detecting high levels of carbon dioxide,” Wemmie says.
And so Feinstein, Wemmie and their colleagues administered a new test to SM, along with a pair of twin sisters with similar brain lesions from the same rare disease. All three volunteers were exposed to high concentrations of the gas.
The researchers thought that the patients would be insensitive to the test. “We were pretty shocked when exactly the opposite happened,” Wemmie says.

Large scale changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation result in shifts in standing waves in the climate system. People are used to thinking of these in terms of the AMO, PDO, etc – but theses are all intrinsically linked as nodes in a climate network.

‘It is intriguing to note a shared rhythm among the following: successful synchronizations of high-frequency indices, shifts between periods of alternating character of interannual variability, and the stadium-wave’s multidecadal tempo. This similar pacing suggests possible stadium-wave influence on synchronizations of interannual-to-interdecadally-varying indices within the climate network. Future research is required to determine the exact significance of these episodes.’

But these ‘standing waves’ in the climate system change the global distribution of cloud and rainfall. The change in global refelected shortwave is much less than the reported change in US cloud. This is because the current patterns predispose the US to drought while other regions – Australia, Indonesia etc – see very much increased rainfall.

These current patterns suggest a cool global mode over the next decade or so and in increase in global cloud cover. Indeed – more cloud is on the cards for the next millenium.

‘ENSO causes climate extremes across and beyond the Pacific basin; however, evidence of ENSO at high southern latitudes is generally restricted to the South Pacific and West Antarctica. Here, the authors report a statistically significant link between ENSO and sea salt deposition during summer from the Law Dome (LD) ice core in East Antarctica. ENSO-related atmospheric anomalies from the central-western equatorial Pacific (CWEP) propagate to the South Pacific and the circumpolar high latitudes. These anomalies modulate high-latitude zonal winds, with El Niño (La Niña) conditions causing reduced (enhanced) zonal wind speeds and subsequent reduced (enhanced) summer sea salt deposition at LD. Over the last 1010 yr, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below-average (El Niño–like) epochs, 1000–1260 ad and 1920–2009 ad, and a longer above-average (La Niña–like) epoch from 1260 to 1860 ad. Spectral analysis shows the below-average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2–5 yr, while the above-average epoch is associated more with variability around 6–7 yr. The LDSSS record is also significantly correlated with annual rainfall in eastern mainland Australia. While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO), the LDSSS record suggests rainfall in the modern instrumental era (1910–2009 ad) is below the long-term average. In addition, recent rainfall declines in some regions of eastern and southeastern Australia appear to be mirrored by a downward trend in the LDSSS record, suggesting current rainfall regimes are unusual though not unknown over the last millennium.’ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim

With ENSO and these high latitude circumpolar winds – the ‘stadium wave’ might flow in the other direction.

I wasn’t aware I needed permission from the babbler to point out that he’s babbline. Is it another new nanny law from your wacky leaders down under?

By the way, I’m pretty sure stalking doesn’t apply on a single blog. It’s not like I’m hunting you down like a coyote all over the internet or phoning you and hanging up and things of that nature. Get a grip, babble boy.

Big dave – you’re really a bugged out nincompoop with no ability to read or resson at all. The stalking you have already admitted. It consists of dropping as a matter of policy with inane and contentless dipsh_t droppings.

I think I suggested that if I wanted < some cackling crone in a dress and red shoes to pollute the space – I would ask. In the meantime if you have nothing meaningful to say then stfu.

I am so over Americans who think they can insult my country. With people like you it is no wonder at all that the US is a dysfunctional and failing society with about as much economic future as North Korea. As far as I can see you will continue to vote yoursleves bread and circuses until China forecloses on the entire country. We have an alliance but it is not one that we put any store in anymore. We don’t expect the US to be capable of or willing to project anything but incompetence and buffoonery. There is nothing that America succeeds in anymore but bluster and bs. It is all slipping away and you don’t know how to get it back but still continue this faded charade of American exceptionalism. Every one is laughing at you but you don’t see what a joke you have become. Uncle Sam now wears a red nose and big red shoes – that’s pretty funny.

“We don’t expect the US to be capable of or willing to project anything but incompetence and buffoonery.”

All hat, no cattle. One US aircraft carrier group could swat your navy like a fly. Stealth aircraft would take out your air force and land defenses the next day then American kids barely old enough to shave would sit in Langley remotely flying predator drones taking out targets at will. You wouldn’t last a week. We both know that.

‘That raises the question of how vulnerable U.S. aircraft carriers might be to attack by the Chinese air force and navy. The United States has built its maritime force structure around a handful of giant supercarriers, which have been deployed repeatedly to deter Chinese military action against Taiwan. But with China’s double-digit economic growth fueling a rapid buildup of long-range weapons, many experts have begun to doubt the wisdom of deploying U.S. carriers anywhere near the Middle Kingdom in wartime.

Obviously, there are many reasons why China would want to avoid a war, especially one involving use of nuclear weapons. But accidents happen, and the credibility of U.S. security guarantees to regional allies hinge on how effective naval forces might be in a future conflict. Since all the geographical advantages lie with China, it is crucial to know whether the six or seven carriers that America could deploy quickly to the Western Pacific would survive a Chinese onslaught. If they are vulnerable, the war might be over very soon.

Your problem then becomes how to deploy aricraft in the region. Although you can be assured thatwe have sophisticed air to air and ground to air defence if any get through. Certianly sufficient to knock out clumsy drones in any quantity. We also have the most sophistacated early warming system on the planet. We can see things coming almost before they’re launched. We are not Pakistan.

Then there is the question of regional linkages. China amongst many others would not like to see their supply chains interuppted. The nuclear theat is a toothless tiger.

You have lost every war for the past 60 years – as I say buffoonery and incompetence coupled with bluster is no substitute for strategic thinking.

‘The Air Force’s bomber troubles stretch a long way back. The last bomber to be developed and purchased without huge cost overruns was the B-52, which began development in the late 1940s. Twice in subsequent decades the Air Force launched a new bomber program in order to replace the now-classic B-52, only to see costs rise and production terminated early. Seventy years after its design was conceived, the B-52 remains America’s most numerous strategic bomber.’

The so caled stealth bombers are limited to 20 – and you can’t afford squat either as replacement or to increase the number. You need to keep 19 of the 20 in reserve to bomb China – only there are only 2 working at any one time. They are slo, clumsy and vulnerable to passive radar – of which we have plenty of home grown examples. http://www.cea.com.au/!Global/Directory.php?Location=Home:Home

It seems increasingly likely that we are on the wrong side of strategic alliances. Better fix that.

Based on my experience, Dave is in a very small minority of Amricans regarding opinions and attitudes towards Australia and its citizens. Generally speaking, most Americans I know have your country high on their list of places they want to visit. And everyone I know who has been there only has positive things to say about the people. (Only negative I’ve ever heard is about the cost of living. Your beer prices are shocking to an American.)

I keep in mind that Dave is a Marine. Now we in the Navy love our big little brothers in the Corps. Though we don’t like to let them know it, we are pretty proud. (My son is a Marine and I’m proud as hell about that.) But we also understand that every now and then they are not fit to be let out in public. Dave, for all of his other virtues, can regularly illustrate where the jar in jarhead comes from. There is nothing of value to be gained in arguing with a jarhead.

Au contraire. I think It is truly inspirational how well chief has stoically stood up to insulting rhetoric. Think of all he has endured. Surely we can understand how, in the face of such a onslaught, his tolerance might wear a smidgeon thin on rare occasion?

After all, he’s only human. At least he hasn’t allowed his terrible, terrible abuse (oh, the humanity!) to lower the high standards he sets for himself.

And consider Chief’s brilliant insight and logic. Clearly, now that he has put his foot down, Springer’s insulting behaviors will cease immediately. It’s not as if Chief is indulging in similarly insulting behavior – that would only perpetuate the insult exchange.

I started a new blog http://convergetics.org in which I advance that climate change is natural and cyclic. To demonstrate that the apparent illogical temperature variation since 1880 is in fact a coherent superposition of two climate patterns, I use the climate graph displayed on the CRU homepage.

Did you know that Earth isn’t just warming; it’s also shaking more? Since the 80s, major earthquakes are 58% on the rise. A 3-year per decade comparison that includes the most recent earthquake data shows that there have been 317 earthquakes of magnitude 6 and higher during 1980-1982, number which increased to 501 (58% more) during 2010-2012. Decadal increase is a little smaller: There have been 1085 major earthquakes of magnitude 6 and higher in the 1980s, 1492 earthquakes (38% more) in the 1990s and 1611 earthquakes (48% more) in the 2000s. See the statistics.

I lived in southern California for 20 years. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You won’t notice a mag 6 more than 100 miles away unless you happened to see a light fixture hanging from the ceiling start to swing a tiny bit.

Did you click on the link? It’s from Wikipedia: Richter magnitude scale. And the seismologist who wrote is explanation is of the same kind as the IPCC climatologists who needed 16 years to “see” the warming pause. Incidentally, I observe earthquakes since the 70s…

g, do you think the sun’s geomagnetic forces have any vulkanic effect on earth or is this Mother Gaia doing her own thing?

This is going to be of another post, but since you asked, the short answer is no and no, for the simply reason that all aspects of Sun’s activity and the various manifestations of Earth’s activity (warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc.) are together consequences of a cosmic phenomenon. If you ask why wasn’t it explained before, it’s because the present science is so fragmented that nobody could connect the dots until now. When I had realized that today’s scientists can no longer see the forest for the trees, I have created Convergetics, the overarching science that converges fields of natural science to gain more knowledge.

No, it’s because I never used it. I just wanted to know how WordPress works. Besides, I have my own server that hosts the three Convergetics: com, org and net.

And why didn’t you do the usual thing which is “This site has moved to blahblahblah.com. Please update your links.” instead of just turning the old blog into a dead end with all the content gone?

Thanks! I just forgot to modify the website in my user settings. Now, the error is corrected.

Well let’s see. I have the US Geological Service agreeing with me on one hand and an anonymous commenter on a blog disagreeing with me on the other hand.

Well, let’s see. In the first paragraph of your reference, you read:

Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant.

Now, let’s verify if this affirmation is true at the right place, on the USGS Earthquake Facts and Statistics Graphs. So, go and see the statistics at the USGS National Earthquake Information Center and do the math, or on my blog at http://convergetics.org/detailed-earthquake-statistics/, where the math for earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater is easier to calculate. Either way, you will find the following decadal statistics: 105 in 1880-89, 153 in 1990-99 and 144 in 2000-09. Now, the numbers for the three years par decade are: 37 in 1880-82, 47 in 1990-92, 44 in 2000-02 and 58 in 2010-12.
Now, please tell me: When earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater were 58 in 2010-12 vs 37 in 1880-82, which is 57% earthquake increase, would you call that “earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant?”
Besides, the second paragraph starts with “A partial explanation may lie in the fact that…” so the author agrees that there is still another part which isn’t easy to explain. Which one is bigger?
And btw, the anonymous commenter is the president of the Convergetics Research Center, and had predicted the present warming pause back in 2001, when nobody even dreamed about it. (The details are on my blog.)

Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of
significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the
data.

It seems to me that both these claims cannot be true. Either Beenstock and Reingewertz are wrong in their analysis, or the IPCC is wrong in the AR4.

It might be instructive to hear what the denizens of Climate Etc. think.

The Beenstock & Reingewertz 2010 analysis to which you referred is a bit of an embarrassment for CAGW proponents, because it clearly concludes

“Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data”.
.

“We carry out robustness checks using new reconstructions for solar irradiance from Lean and Rind (2009), for globally averaged temperature from Mann et al. (2008) and for global land surface temperature (1850–2007) from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study.”

The conclusions reached are essentially the same:

“We have shown that anthropogenic forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, data for 1880–2007 do not support the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming during this period.”

They add this sentence for clarification:

“The fact that since the mid 19th century Earth’s temperature is unrelated to anthropogenic forcings does not contravene the laws of thermodynamics, greenhouse theory, or any other physical theory. Given the complexity of Earth’s climate, and our incomplete understanding of it, it is difficult to attribute to carbon emissions and other anthropogenic phenomena the main cause for global warming in the 20th century.”

Look, the problem with this analysis is you have to accept that polynomial cointegration actually tells you something. If you look at it as a model, can it predict future temps? If you accept it as a model…. Well, I wonder where the skepticism is about models that many ‘skeptics’ seem to have. Why accept this model and not a GCM?

GCM are chaotic without a doubt. The uncertainties of inputs and couplings and the nature of the governing equations mean that there is no single deterministic solution – and the limits of ‘irreducible imprecision’ is unknown.

That method is good for detecting certain types of correlations and totally unable to detect certain others. Interdependencies that have a trend as their principal signal are always a problem for statistical methods. Trends may be very strong evidence but judging their significance requires other approaches. Thus we can conclude from that paper only that one method didn’t provide evidence, not that the causal relationship could not be true and even very strong.

Most times it is the skeptics’ lot that simply being right is about as good as it gets because the skeptic generally is not in it for the reward and most folks do not like learning they were to too stupid, ignorant, greedy or fearful to accept the truth. The transition from the skeptic who questions the consensus to a public that accepts the skeptic’s truth oftentimes takes time.

Remember how Fulton persisted in his folly and Dr. Barry Marshall drank H. pylori cocktail and vindicated science by vomiting on the accepted knowledge of his peers? Imagine a frail and doped Nietzsche glaring at the paper inches from his nose through blistering eyes as he scribbled about the coming of The Dude. Feel the suffering of Socrates, Jesus and George Bush who refused to sign away America’s future at Kyoto.

Cite your sources. I am aware of a number of calculations to 700m – but this doesn’t give cause to dismiss the deeper integrations. Historically – it was considered that 700m was sufficient to capture most change but it appears not to be the case.

It’s the cold water on top that causes a swirling vortex. That much in irrepresible. Capturing it in a mathematical formula presents some difficulties but observing it is easy. And, reality trumps dogma.

Following Natural forces have have been terminated and real-time magnetosphere and SPACE WEATHER SIMULATION ended because the lease on the supercomputer for the real-time simulation expired and government funding will not be immediately available. The future of the world is now in the hands of schoolteachers who can develop more accurate and practical space environment models and humanity’s only hope is if they are able to resume the real-time simulation of nature in the near future. Godspeed.

Now some, not Eli to be sure might note that at the moment we were first able to accurately measure surface temperatures using satellites, global warming also stopped, well stopped until the errors in various algorithms and software (which have still not been fully released) were found. That took over twenty years and it did not help that the two people who constructed the first series have a number of axes on the grinding wheel.

And, oh yes, based on the latest and greatest the heat content of the ocean is still rising

Now some, not Eli to be sure might note that at the moment we were first able to accurately measure surface temperatures using satellites, global warming also stopped, well stopped until the errors in various algorithms and software (which have still not been fully released) were found. That took over twenty years and it did not help that the two people who constructed the first series have a number of axes on the grinding wheel.

And, oh yes, based on the latest and greatest the heat content of the ocean is still rising

Satellites that provide the most accurate data we have tell us the oceans are cooling and have been for more than a decade. Some scientists predict global cooling for decades more–perhaps for the next 30 to 70 years. The globe may experience another ice age before the end of the century. No one really knows. We could be on the precipice of another ice age now and we wouldn’t know that now–only looking back would we know where we were. The Earth has been locked in ice age conditions for more than 80% of the time over the last one million years.

Now some, not Eli to be sure might note that at the moment we were first able to accurately measure surface temperatures using satellites, global warming also stopped, well stopped until the errors in various algorithms and software (which have still not been fully released) were found. That took over twenty years and it did not help that the two people who constructed the first series have a number of axes on the grinding wheel.

Some, not Eli of course, would realize that lower troposphere temperatures are not and should not be the same as “surface” temperatures, especially when the “surface” is a few meters below the “surface”.for 70% of the “surface” Since the lower troposphere temperatures are dependent on the rate of heat loss from the core thermal mass, they would tend to reflect changes in the system and amplify those changes being the density of the lower troposphere is lower than the “surface”.

The LTL, MTL and TST would be a poor man’s version of a Watt meter. Since the LTL is cooling slightly, it could indicate that someone picked the wrong “surface” :)

You can’t measure a total SYSTEM response by looking at 7 locations.
Also, since sensitivity, ECR, is defined as the total system responce when the system reaches equillbrium, you cant learn anything from a decades worth of data. the issue is inertia. Now, as you know applying a forcing of horse power increases the speed of vehicle. If you apply that forcing, and your tires spin and you go nowwhere for a second, you would not conclude that the sensitivity to that forcing was zero. Firest you have to overcome inertia. In the case of the planet that would be overcoming the inertia of the oceans. That more than decades before you can see a response.
Plus you screwed up and didnt cite the net forcing. No hope for you.

Steven Mosher | February 8, 2013 at 8:24 pm:
“…you cant learn anything from a decades worth of data. The issue is inertia…”
Or so you say. But James Hansen did not think much of it in 1988 when he told the Senate that anthropogenic global warming had started. His presentation was prepared in 1987 when he had only ten years warming to report. It so happens that there was no warming in the fifties, sixties, and early seventies and people were worried about a a new ice age, not warming. The warming that Hansen depended upon was a step warming associated with the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976 which raised global temperature by 0.2 degrees Celsius and was over by 1980. From that point until 1997 there was no warming – just ENSO phases, El Ninos alternating with La Ninas, while global mean temperature stayed the same. He gave his presentation first in November 1987 but it was a bust – media just ignored it. Chairman of the Senate committee was Tom Wirth, a buddy of Al Gore, and he set about to take corrective action. It was cold in November so he asked the Weather Bureau what the warmest day of the year was. It was June 23rd so he set up a new hearing for that day. He also made sure TV stations all knew about it. Night before the hearing he went out, opened all the windows and turned off the air conditioning. It worked. The next day TV cameras were there in double digits, and it was so warm that everybody had to wipe the sweat off their foreheads. In his presentation Hansen showed dangerous model temperature projections up to 2019 and frightened his audience. He claimed that the warming they were experiencing was global warming but it turns out that 1988 was just the peak year of the 1988 El Nino, one of five El Ninos in the eighties and nineties. His talk was all over the evening news that day and was a strong influence towards establishing the IPCC that same year. And of course, payola had to follow, in the form of a Heinz Foundation award a year later. Six months after his talk the El Nino peak had passed and the La Nina that followed pushed down global temperature by 0.4 degrees from what it was in 1988.

The author’s speculation sounds like a combination of David and Chief’s answers to me. I would think that 13W/m2 over 16 years should be noticable in temperature and humidity even if it is just a regional effect. You can’t warm the world unless you warm regions.

steven fundamentally untrue. All you need to do is look at the distribution of station trends over time to realize that even over long periods ( 30 years plus) that some regions can cool while others warm and the global average goes up. dont forget climate is complex.. ha.
and its not 13 watts, so get the figures right.
homogeneous warming is the least likely result, not the most likely

” Annual anomalies of total surface net radiation from 1996 through 2011 are shown in Figure 3. The network mean as well as the means of the individual stations generally increase over the entire period. A linear least squares fit to the network mean reveals a +8.2 Wm−2 per decade increase, which amounts to about +13 Wm−2 over the entire period.”

Call it 12 if that makes you feel better. It still remains mysterious.

Homogenous warming is the least likely, I agree. So where should we look for the most likely place for warming to occur? Where the Watts are increasing at a rate considerably above the average expected? I’m very suprised you don’t find the results of the study interesting and counter-intuitive.

I didn’t ask for total system sensitivity, Steven. I asked for sensitivity using those 7 stations.

But I see your point. Using just 7 stations is akin to using just instrument records where the instruments are located mostly in CONUS and Western Europe. You know, like BEST. Undersampling is undersampling.

I asked the question tongue-in-cheek by the way. It’s fun to push your buttons.

“Humanity needs access to abundant, affordable energy as the basis on which to improve all our lives. It would be better still if that energy were not as polluting as the current main energy sources, coal and oil. Recent pollution problems in the Chinese capital, Beijing, are testament to the need for clean energy. The trouble is that the technologies available to us at the moment are too expensive and unreliable to take the place of fossil fuels. Instead of beating ourselves up about our eco-footprints, we should be devoting our collective energies to the research and development required to produce clean energy economically.”

So what do got?
Nuclear energy- obvious choice.
Natural gas- another obvious.
Is there problem? Not really.
The only problem I see is we should want cheaper energy.
Fusion energy is been pie in sky- but the government paid
people working on this have not given up. But since they are being
paid despite getting no result, that could the reason they aren’t
giving up.
What else is there other than fusion?
What geothermal energy on massive scale.
Instead drilling small holes, make a tunnel.
Go underneath the surface a few miles.
Could you combine digging deep and fusion?
Use fusion bombs for energy.
1 MT is 5600 terajoules {10^12 J} Or
5600000000 megawatt [MW] or 177 MW for
a year. Or at $10 per MW hour it is 15.5 million
dollar worth of energy. US made 70,000 warheads
and Soviets made more of them.
And 70,000 time 15.5 million is 1.08 trillion.
The Soviets never had 1 trillion dollars, and US didn’t
spend trillion dollars making them. US over decades
have spent far more money securing and storing
them than US spent to making them. So somewhere
around 1/100 or 1/1000th of this price. So cheap
energy IF you use this energy at low cost.
Of course such an idea is politically unlikely.
Of course it’s political unlike IF done on Earth-
A country willing to leave the Outer Space treaty
[easy to do] could do this on the Moon. But probably
want a lot of water or something that captures the
energy- Moon does not have oceans of water. It’s
got small lakes “worth of it”- billions of tonnes. And
the current value of billion of tonnes on the Moon is
worth far more than 1 trillion dollars. So at least in the
near term [before 2100] if went to bother to mined the
lunar water, you sell it for far more money.
On the dry planet Mars, you have trillions of tonnes
of water. If might use [somehow] nuclear bomb to mine
the water- it is thought to be a lot under the surface.
But anyhow, not gonna to work for Earthlings even if
some of them were willing to leave their blue marble.

Of course North Korea or some other political pariah
could do it. Even China could it. At least they could have
technological potential of doing it- not sure they have
ability to do it so bordered on being safe.
Oh here we go:
“7 (Crazy) Civilian Uses for Nuclear Bombs”http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/yourfriendatom/
Not I what was talking about- but interesting history on
fracking:)

Many of you treat these issues as black or white, yes or no, on or off. Our hostess keeps making the uncertainty point. All of the evidence says the signal (AGW) is weak, while the noise (natural climate variability) is strong. All the science in the world is not going to change that fundamental. Nor can models. There are, however, far more certain, stronger signal with less noise related things that should be getting the attention that hypothetical CAGW should not. Hopefully Dr. Curry will agree to host more posts on them.

Many of you treat these issues as black or white, yes or no, on or off. Our hostess keeps making the uncertainty point. All of the evidence says the signal (AGW) is weak, while the noise (natural climate variability) is strong.

I guess you want to offer a challenge to the “Chief” of unintentional irony, eh?

Don’t you think this is getting little old Joshua? I would be a little that dogmatic but the evidence certainly seems to be that CO2 is a minor contribution to recent warming.

Fo instance – ‘The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980’s and 1990’s is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period.’ http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html

Strong warming in SW and less strong cooling in IR. But there is much more.

The models are of course chaotic. There is no single deterministic solution and the topology of the solution space – to put it in the proper chaotical jargon – is unknown.

‘In this commentary, I will discuss the question “If somebody were to discover that climate variations in the past were stronger than previously thought, what would be the implications for estimates of climate sensitivity?” Pick your favorite time period – Little ice age, Medieval Warm Period, Last Glacial Maximum or Cretaceous – the issues are the same. In considering this question, it is important to keep in mind that the predictions summarized in the IPCC reports are not the result of some kind of statistical fit to past data. Thus, a revision in our picture of past climate variability does not translate in any direct way into a change in the IPCC forecasts. These forecasts are based on comprehensive simulations incorporating the best available representations of basic physical processes. Of course, data on past climates can be very useful in improving these representations. In addition, past data can be used to provide independent estimates of climate sensitivity, which provide a reality check on the models. Nonetheless, the path from data to change in forecast is a subtle one.’ to quote from raypierre – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/natural-variability-and-climate-sensitivity/

And to compare this to James McWilliams.

‘In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?

Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full

Despite raypiere’s assurances – the lack of a single deterministic solution for any of these comprehensive simulations suggest caution in assessing the potential spread and accepting the results. McWilliams cites a posteriori solution behaviour as a plausibility criteria for ensemble members. The chosen solution is one amongst many possible solutions.

I would doubt that food and fuel are insurmountable technological problems – but agree as well that we would do well to get on with these and other urgent environmental and social problems

‘I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all’

What was the question mosh?

Epistawhat? Sounds like something that happens after a few too many beers at the Great Western.

The data is of course one thing. To the extent that it can be depended on – we have some notion of the global energy budget contraints.

dS/dt = energy in – energy out

Where dS/dt is the rate of instaneous change in global energy storage and energy in and out are average unit energies over a period.

Or ARGO – if we can rely on the data we basically know whether dS/dt is positive or negative – regardless of abrupt shifts in climate.

We all have perfect 20/20 hindsight – if we can rely on the data. The question about whether or not I expressed certainty seems to rely on interpretation. What I said was that the evidence suggests. The reliability of the data brings in question of epistemic uncertainty that should not be overlooked. But the data is the data we have.

Where S is the planetary energy content and Ein and Eout are the rates of unit energy in and out respectively. The terms of the equation are defined precisely – and the units are a consequence of the definition of terms.
Unit energy is the Wattage for 1 second – and the answer is in Joules. 1 Watt for 1 second is 1 Joule. The rate is the average number of Joules/second over a period.

The energy conservation equation where the change is evaluated over a period is:

ΔS (J) = Ein (J) – Eout (J)

The change in energy in the global system is the difference between energy in and energy out in the period. You simply divide by the period to get the rate of change of S and the average of unit energy in and out in the period to get the differential form.

dS/dt (J/s) = Ein (J/s) – Eout (J/s)

Where… Exactly the same form as the hydrological equation – but you forgot the delta in both cases and neglect the dependecne of energy on both power flux and time. .

The more interesting part is that ARGO, SORCE and CERES can be interrogated to look at the sign of energy imbalances and even to assign cause between albedo, IR and solar intensity – albedo is especially a critical problem in climate science. But in fact if you had a good estimate of S – you could close the budget fairly precisely.

So it is not really the simple energy budget that is problematic – the formula is absolutely correct – based on the 1st law – and perfectly defines the energy budget of the planet. I am afraid it is webby that is the problem.

Where S is the planetary energy content and Ein and Eout are the rates of unit energy in and out respectively.

Then Instead write it: dS/dt = Pin – Pout

The terms of the equation are defined precisely – and the units are a consequence of the definition of terms.

Unit energy is Joules (the Watt-second). Unit power is Watts (or Joues/second)

To calculate average energy, integrate the energy function with respect to time and divide by the time period.

The more interesting part is that ARGO, SORCE and CERES …

Yes. I agree. In fact I am looking forward to it. However, there is still the question as to the limitations of mass balance storage equations when used to represent energy balance storage. What do you say?

A Watt is a Joule/s and a Joule is a Wattxs as you said but there is no such animal as unit power. There is power flux and unit energy.

So if we have 1361.5 W/m^2 – this is 1361.5 J/m^2 as unit energy – that is the power flux for a period of 1 second. We like to talk about energy rather than instantaneous power flux when thinking about energy conserved, heat, work, etc.

If you look at the graph – you will see that energy in declines in the Schwabe cycle to 2009 or so and then increased again. So up to 2009 there was a cooling solar trend – warming a little after. But the energy in needs to be adjusted for the Earth’s geometry. Divide it by 4 – so the actual change is fairly minimal. Energy out seems to change much more.

Thank you for your patience and persistance. I have found some errors in my earlier comments. Nevertheless the essence of the complaint remains. Please correct using basic physics/math. I will then return to the kiddie pool.

So what’s your interpretation of Nic Lewis’s recent paper that estimated 1.7C per doubling of CO2? We stand to more than double CO2 (equiv) and 1.7C is a LOT of global warming. It’s about double of 20th century warming. How then can the AGW signal be weak when it stands to cause more warming than nature typically has over past millenia?

Of course you could argue Nic Lewis’s paper is wrong….but I wonder what alternative sensitivity value you are thinking about. Surely even a 0.5C sensitivity to doubling CO2 would leave CO2 as the probable biggest driver of 21st century global temperature.

Simple enough. Sensitivity is theory. Signal is reality. But if sensitivity is another word for prediction then it is just nonsense, predicting what cannot be predicted. Yet it is used this way, among five other ways. In short the concept of sensitivity is so screwed up it is meaningless.

Like utopean social engineering attempts throughout history,
geo-engineering , engineering the BIG solution for perceived
dangerous warming of the planet, demonstrates the folly and
presumption of would- be platonists.

Geo engineering solutions to perceived AGW warming from CO2
such as sprinkling mineral filings in oceans may reduce vast
amounts of iron appears to be this kind of folly. Never mind
if this alters the balance of the oceans.

And never mind that the science is far from ‘settled.’ Numerous
threads on Climate Etc have raised arguments that counter
alarmism about atmospheric warming and need for a drastic action.

For examplle:

*Doubling of CO2 seems unlikely to be catastrophic.Professor
Lindzen estimates climate sensitivity, based on ERBE data,at about

* .5 degrees. Institutions like the IPCC are now reducing their
previous much higher guestimates.

*As CO2 continues to rise temperatures have not. In the last
15/16 years temperatures have plateaued.

And never mind that denizens have pointed out a moderate
warming is desirable for people living in cold latitudes an for their production offood. Plants love CO2. Can’t get enough of it. :)

And never mind that IF we need to reduce CO 2 we can by
beneficial and less drastic means than BIG planning geo-
engineering or social engineering. We’ve had a couple of
denizens here present vids on win-win conservation projects
as local pragmative initiatives. We’ve had Freeman Dyson’s
insights and estimates re increasing soil biomas to sequester
*all* the carbon we may need to sequester from the artmosphere.

Let’s here it fer adaptible, pragmatic humans responding in a free
society to what comes up, black swan or what-ever.

Using your logic, building cities is “geoengineering” (and, therefore, “folly”). As was pulling ourselves out of the abject poverty and misery of a world before we had access to reliable, inexpensive energy from fossil fuels (and was, therefore, also “folly”). As a matter of fact, exhaling CO2 is also “geoengineering”, and breathing is, therefore, also “folly”.

Duh!

It’s time to get serious, man.

“Geoengineering” is willfully attempting to change our planet’s climate by actions, which have no other overriding useful purpose – and, you are right, this is “folly”.

“Like utopean social engineering attempts throughout history,
geo-engineering , engineering the BIG solution for perceived
dangerous warming of the planet, demonstrates the folly and
presumption of would- be platonists.

Geo engineering solutions to perceived AGW warming from CO2
such as sprinkling mineral filings in oceans may reduce vast
amounts of iron appears to be this kind of folly. Never mind
if this alters the balance of the oceans.”

Large government project involving iron fertilization of oceans
no doubt would be folly.
Government sponsored projects [including
no government money being necessarily involved – but political sanction and incentives {useful laws passed} but not necessarily involving government providing a pay check] which involves iron fertilization of oceans
could a good idea. So not something done on a large scale, until such time as more scientific knowledge can be discovered regarding this.
Same applies to Methane ocean deposit mining. Like the Japanese are doing- only we *could* do better than how Japanese are doing it. Or if not better, at least trying different approaches to problem involved [give the Japanese some scientific competition [both parties will benefit from such competition].
Now iron fertilization could change the ocean. But changing the ocean is not in itself bad. Other than do something about global CO2 levels, we could increase ocean productivity. Also probably run across stuff concerning which could said to be unexpected- we could learn something about the ocean we don’t already know.
Plus iron fertilization is not exclusively something that human do, nature
is and has dumped lots of stuff into the ocean. Nature *has* and *is* doing iron fertilization of the ocean. If you throw dirt into the ocean, you are doing iron fertilization- Iron is a common substance on Earth- it’s everywhere.
So a large volcanic eruption could be doing a significant amount of iron fertilization of the ocean. Black smokers constantly spewing it’s black stuff [which could be largely iron] can be doing iron fertilization on smaller and local scale.
So, exploration. Rather than production. Maybe production, later. maybe production will be mostly about increasing fish stocks.

You are assuming the solar energy remains active as the 20th century. The more common is a less active sun. When the solar energy drops, the GMST and the CO2 concentration will also drop. That is what happened during the Little Ice age.

Wow, that is awefully certain.. you realize that at .5 you cannot explain de glaciation. So, if sensitivity = .5C, then you cant get out of an ice age.
but, we have gotten out of ice ages… therefore?
lindzen is falsified. You have no choice but to reject his theory. Feynman says so, as does Popper

By definition,Climate is a long term state. It has to include all seasons and so has to be of years in duration. It has to include permanent anthropogenetic effects such as have occured in the 2oth and 21st centuries.and permanent urban heat island effects which raise the temperature of many cities and sometimes their sorrounds. So producing a climate graph from actual daily measurements which fluctuate wildly is essentially a proces of selecting the right arithmetical averaging process. I find the eleven year central moving average is about right, but does have the disadvantage that we are always five and one half years behind knowing today’s smoothed temperature. But you can always estimaye whether the temperature has gone up or down during the last 5 1/2 years.

During the 20th and 21st centuries we have had several different global average climates. Between 1910 and 1940 we had a stedily increasing temperature (0.5C total), then after 1940 temprtature fell equally rapidly but eventually rose again reaching the 1940 level again in 1980. After 1980 temperature rose again to about 2000 and has remained constant on average since.

hes been directed to the evidence many times, as have the rest of you. empirical evidence. empirical measurements. To say otherwise is akin to arguing that black is white and white is black. That is what his argument amounts to he asks for evidence and measurement. I’ve pointed him at it many times and he and you pretend otherwise. I see no point in continuing. he asked. I delivered. done

What a pile on crap Steve people me included have asked you for the paper to prove that man’s little bit of CO2 compared to Nature’s is what is driving this little warming . Where is your proof I’ve asked you this alot and get the same as up comment NOTHING ,”I gave it before” NO you never !!!

I contend that the lower “moist” thermal gradient (lapse rate) is primarily due to intra-atmospheric radiation. Carbon dioxide plays a small part in this, though water vapour does most of it. The gradient is reduced and the whole thermal plot rotates around a point which might be only about 4Km up in the atmosphere. But this leads to lower surface temperatures. Hence water vapour has a negative feedback, not positive as they claim. This is a crucial point, because they say the effect of carbon dioxide is increased significantly by the assumed positive feedback.

Radiation can only transfer heat from warmer regions to cooler regions. Above the tropics in calm conditions the thermal gradient is a fairly uniform 6.5C/Km throughout the 17Km high tropopause.

So all heat transfer by radiation is upwards to cooler regions. Energy makes its way out of the atmosphere more quickly when water vapour is in abundance, because the radiation process is more effective when there are more radiating molecules.

Hence radiated energy makes its way upwards at the speed of light in a random path between (mostly) water vapour molecules. Whenever it heads back down to lower layers of water molecules or the warmer surface, it cannot transfer heat and it merely gets immediately re-emitted in a “pseudo scattering” process described in my March 2012 paper on Radiated Energy on the Principia Scientific International website.

So the maximum daytime temperatures are cooler when moisture is present than they would otherwise be if there were no water vapour and energy is thus trapped in a slow moving non-radiative process involving convection.

How do you explain Tisdale’s observation that all the ocean surface warming has been in the Indian, the North Atlantic, and the Arctic oceans and everything else has been flat or cooling? CO2 isn’t perfectly mixed but it spreads out pretty well. Better than water vapor. Why wouldn’t it warm more evenly?

‘deep water upwelling’
right. Cold water, which began its life as melt water in the polar regions decides to go against the density gradient and makes its way to the surface, whilst the warm brine of the sea surface decides to go for a sink.
There is no point in attempting to understand the energetics for these huge transfers of mass and heat around the Earth, all one needs to do is throw down, ‘deep water upwelling’, like a crooked cop throws down a Uzi after an illegal shooting,

Well sure, but except for the ITCZ/Kelvin wave upwelling this happens all around the edges. It is driven by wind and Ekman transport and that cold water just wants to sink again at the earliest opportunity. The Indian and North Atlantic oceeans enjoy their fair share of this upwelling. The Arctic does not, probably because the ice is a slipsheet for the wind.

Candidly, I don’t believe CO2 is radiatively warming the oceans significantly. The lack of IR permeability and thermal stability are huge theoretical obstacles. Even the “GHG thermal mass” theory propounded by Willis and Roy Spencer requires the atmosphere to warm proportionately. It hasn’t been.

Adding the observation that the Indian, North Atlantic and Arctic oceans account for all of the surface warming is yet another contraindication.

On the other hand, if I knew all the answers, I wouldn’t be wondering why the atmosphere has steadfastly refused to recieve additional enthalpy from the oceans for the last 16 years as the ocean surface has continued, on average, to warm.

You can see her the ‘V’ of cold water that is the signature of the cool Pacific Decadal Mode. Look closely in the central Pacific and you can see lines of cold aligned north to south. This is cold water rising in the equatorial zone driven by Ekmann transport pushing warm surface water away from the equator – Coriolis forces arising from the spin of the planet. Upwelling is probably too simple a notion – just shorthand for a number of processes in play. I find Bob ignores all of these other forces as ENSO drivers.

It’s not only those areas which are warming anomolously*. Andaman Sea, Southern North Sea, Lake Tanganyika. Crious how the warming CO2 hovers over those parts of the planet which are being sbjected to major oil and srfactant polltion. Enough light oil comes down the Siberian rivers to equal an Exxon Valdez every four weeks.**

How is the Med doing? I’ve seen it reglarly for the last few years and it’s polltion levels are astronomic, bt it has always been bad so maybe the effect has satrated.

Come on Mosh, do the southern North Sea. And the blip, do the blip. I can do the blip. Can you?

JF
Insert smiley here. And scatter yoos where appropriate, my keyboard has failed.
*If there is sch a word.
**OK, for rgb@dke, that’s four weeks, five hours and some minutes. Insert another smiley here.

WordPress blog question: some time ago, WP wouldn’t let me post here on Climate Etc unless I opened a blog. I didn’t want a blog, so called it “notablog” (I’ve since discovered that this isn’t original), adding “might be one one day.” Some time later, I added some papers of mine to it, so that if I referenced a paper in a post, I could link to it.

However, when I go the blog, the URL comes up as “http://climateetc.wordpress.com/ ” I don’t know how this happened, I don’t want to masquerade as Judith, and If I’m going to post, I’d like it to be with a name linkable to me rather than Judith. Lots of posters here seem cluey on WP (unlike me), any advice? Thanks.

Vilified by global warming zealots, Canadian Steve McIntyre, who was passing through Auckland this week, told NBR ONLINE the impact of global warming is likely to be “about half” of what current scientific models are showing.

The Thermohaline, sublime movement like stars in
the night sky. Always perturbation, always interaction.
In rhe ocean depths, mysterious conveyer belt currents
flowing like great arteries, up welling and down welling
to imperatives of salinity and heat.

Would this apply to a politician who happened to know a bit about climate science too? Or is it just a general thing? Is it better for US politicians to claim, rather like Manuel in Fawlty towers, “I know nothing”.

Americans do tend to think that Kerry, Soros , Pelosi etc are leftists rather than enlightened capitalists because they (you) don’t have the real thing in the USA to anywhere near the same extent as in Europe. It partly the system there that allows the wealthy to spend their way into Congress.

You’ll remember the controversial remarks made about the British National Health Service. Do you know who is given the credit for getting it started against all the odds when the UK was broke after the war? Read up on this guy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan

Tempt, I was 14 when Bevan made the 1956 Suez speech quoted on Wikipedia:

“We are stronger than Egypt but there are other countries stronger than us. Are we prepared to accept for ourselves the logic we are applying to Egypt? If nations more powerful than ourselves accept the absence of principle, the anarchistic attitude of Eden and launch bombs on London, what answer have we got, what complaint have we got? If we are going to appeal to force, if force is to be the arbiter to which we appeal, it would at least make common sense to try to make sure beforehand that we have got it, even if you accept that abysmal logic, that decadent point of view.

“We are in fact in the position today of having appealed to force in the case of a small nation, where if it is appealed to against us it will result in the destruction of Great Britain, not only as a nation, but as an island containing living men and women. Therefore I say to Anthony, I say to the British government, there is no count at all upon which they can be defended.

“They have besmirched the name of Britain. They have made us ashamed of the things of which formerly we were proud. They have offended against every principle of decency and there is only way in which they can even begin to restore their tarnished reputation and that is to get out! Get out! Get out!””

The speech was not untypical of the era, with a high-level of principled debate which could not be imagined in modern Australia, and is rarely seen in Britain. The shift is one of the reasons I despair of recent politics.

Wagathon. Look. John Kerry is a member of the US ruling class. He’s the richest person in the US Senate. It’s not in his interest to be a leftist.
Enlightened capitalism certainly is in his interest, though. It ensures that the US ruling class don’t go the same way as the pre-revolutionary Russian and French ruling classes and he’s sensible enough to know that.
That may seem unlikely now but if the zealots of the US tea party ever were allowed to have their way with the US economy, it would seem much less unlikely very rapidly.

Not so… Rand, for example, did not believe an enlightened chauvenism served the interests of women. Rand believes in free will. For Rand it’s real and there’s nothing smug about it. And where does that lead. For starters it means the Left hates Rand the atheist and for ONE reason only.

Rand would choose Bush over Stalin every time. And Rand would choose science over the superstition and ignorance of the masses every time too. Now that the nihilism of the Leftists and their liberal Utopianiam has reached its zenith in the West whatever once had value is now worthless and truth doesn’t matter anymore.

Who do you prefer George Washington or Mao Tse-Tung? I think the answer is simple:

■ If you are a Tibetan Buddhist monk, you prefer a God-fearing protector of personal and religious freedom like George Washington

■ If you are a tenured professor in liberal fascist academia, then Ward Churchill is more inspiring than Winston Churchill, the mass murderer Mao is your philosopher, and Bush-haters Castro and Chavez are your comrades.

“John Kerry is a member of the US ruling class. He’s the richest person in the US Senate. It’s not in his interest to be a leftist.

Enlightened capitalism certainly is in his interest though.”

This is one of the funniest things I have read here in a long time.

The fact that many leftists are rich is nothing new. Being a “leftist,” ie a progressive, is about power. Wealth is perfectly acceptable among the leftists themselves. Look at George Soros. Nancy Pelosi is rich as well, and there is hardly anyone in the Congress further left than she is.

Fascism in the 30s and 40s (you may have read about it) was all about the rich getting in bed with the leftists who wanted centralized power over the economy. “Enlightened” capitalism is just another way of saying the same thing.

Once someone like Soros gets his, it is so much easier to buy government officials and use the awesome power of the state to get what he wants, rather than competing against other entrepreneurs.

Fascism, crony-capitalism, the Blair/Clinton “third way,” social democracy, “enlightened” capitalism, they are all just ways of describing the same thing – trying to centralize power in the government, while somehow keeping the wealth generating aspects of a free market. hen they get the best of both systems – incredible wealth and enormous power. The fact that the great unwashed will live in misery, and the whole thing will ultimately implode. You can’t make an omelot without breaking a few billion of other people’s eggs.

It can work for a while. Shoot, the pure socialist/communist Soviet Union lasted for almost 80 years, and it was built on the dying carcass of Czarist Russia. Who knows how long out current crop of progressives will take to crash the western economy if they remain in power? Could be months, years, decades or longer.

Americans do tend to think that Kerry, Soros , Pelosi etc are leftists rather than enlightened capitalists because they (you) don’t have the real thing in the USA to anywhere near the same extent as in Europe. It partly the system there that allows the wealthy to spend their way into Congress.

You’ll remember the controversial remarks made about the British National Health Service. Do you know who is given the credit for getting it started against all the odds when the UK was broke after the war? Read up on this guy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan

My grandfather was campaign manager for bevan during many of his parliamentary campaigns and helped him to become an mp. Mind you in those days in ebbs vale a monkey in a red rosette would be elected. Bevan, like benn, was a man of considerable principle

Oh there are definitely those much further left than Gore, Pelosi and Soros. But for progressives like yourself, anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is a conservative. I remember once Tamino described Obama as a Chicago School conservative. Explaining leftism to a progressive is like explaining water to a fish. It’s hard for y’all to get a proper perspective.

My philosophy would not be to destroy capitalism but negotiate the best possible deal with the capitalists and at the same time use the power of the democratic system to force big corporations to comply with their social responsibility. They don’t exist just for their shareholders.

You can call it what you like but its basically how things work in Europe and Australia. The Australian working class have negotiated a pretty good deal for themselves. There’s close to full employment. Everyone who genuinely wants a job can find one. There’s health and safety laws for the workplace, minimum wages and conditions, guaranteed award wages to cover for working on public holidays etc. Long service leave etc Its not the done thing to hire and fire. If workers lose their jobs they are entitled to compensation. Workers would typically have 5 weeks paid holidays per year. Sometimes even at extra pay.

Australia’s richest woman, Gina Reinhardt, who owns a fair chunk of the Australian mining industry was griping that Australian workers were greatly overpaid recently. She mentioned some pittance amount she got away with paying her Zambian workers. I would say it’s fair to say that most Australian miners are happy with her owning the wealth she does providing they earn what they do too. That’s the quid pro quo. But if that were to change and any attempt made to slash their wages then there could be conflict.

Rinehart was talking about productivity and there is obviously a need to consider productivity in a high income society. The high dollar doesn’t help – compounded by increases in spending and borrowing. Over the past few years structual deficits have been built into the Australian economy and now that revenue growth is not as strong the deficit is growing wider. The increased borrowing feeds into a stronger dollar and more pressure on productive enterprise.

We would do well to continue to pull back spending and take interest rates down further. It is a matter of rational capitalism and not magic pudding.

“You can call it what you like but its basically how things work in Europe and Australia.”

Yes, ask the Spanish, Greeks, Italians, Portugese, Californians, Illinoisans et al how it is working. As I said, statism/fascism/social democracy may not destroy an economy right away. As I noted, the Soviet Union lasted for about 8 decades, and was even considered a super power for much of that time.

But just as a with a patient with cancer can appear to be perfectly healthy as the disease spreads through, and eats away at his internal organs, the end is inevitable, if you don’t get rid of the cancer.

It took about 80 years, and the cold war with the U.S. for the Soviet economy to finally fall under its own weight. Imagine if Europe, in addition to supporting an unsustainable welfare state for the entire populace, also had to pay for its own defense the last 40 years.

But its always the same snake oil. And it is a cancer. The healthier the patient, the longer it can survive. But just as a cancer always spreads through the body if unchecked, so too central planners always seek more power over the economy and the polity.

Ever heard of the maxim – power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely? It’s one of those conservative principles you all try so hard to discard.

I’ll use this discussion as a hook for my latest letter to The Australian:

“Further to Terry McCrann’s excellent piece (“Elite reveals tax-grab tendencies,” 9-10/2), government has NO right to private citizens’ assets. The population recognises that some things may be better done collectively, and that a democratically-elected, accountable, government may be the best means to achieve some of them. However, the scope of and funding for government are not theirs by right, they depend on a voluntary compact with the people. Politicians and bureaucrats who forget this are in breach of trust, and are not worthy of their privileged, taxpayer-funded, positions. They are our servants, not, as many appear to think, our masters.”

In Nye Bevan’s era, there were many politicians driven by principle and belief and regard for people’s well-being. That was still true in Australia’s Hawke government years (1985-91). There are few now, and those driven by belief tend to be ideological Left/Greens who do not have the people’s welfare at heart, and whose beliefs are misguided. Happy days.

I think the article was pretty explanitory on that. Unfortunately, we Americans are not the most language friendly folks in the world. There isn’t much emphasis on learning a second, let alone third or forth language. I have 3 degrees yet nothing more than 3 years of high school German.

Perhaps because of this lack of focus, Americans can exhibit a tendency to either make fun of or distrust someone speaking another language. Hell, we expect people to speak English when we visit their countries. Add to this a subset of folks who love French bashing – a hobby the French are pretty good at providing material for – and you get the story you link to. Kerry simply does not want to kick off his tour as State with yapping about his speaking French. No big deal.

Sufficient energy? Like your highly questionable 10W/m^2?
The atmosphere of Venus is reasonably well understood. Not by you obviously. You think that high pressure and a gravitational field induces a high temperature in solids liquids and gases. You must think its very hot at the bottom of the sea. I do tend to think its pretty cold down there.

But maybe that’s not right? I must admit that I’ve never been there so I’ve never been able to measure the temperature. Do you think ‘they’ are lying to us? It could all be part of the big lie about climate change which ‘they’ must have been planning for years! That would explain it of course.

The ocean does not present you with any valid way of rebutting what I am saying, and that, by the way, has nothing to do with pressure. The 10W/m^2 is based on an estimate by the Russians who have “been” there in probes dropped onto the surface to measure the Sun’s radiation and the temperature. I have explained why the thermal gradient in the ocean is as observed in other comments, especially on Roy Spencer’s blog, and you will find more detail in my next paper soon to be published. It may help those with a genuine desire to understand, unlike yourself it seems.

Meanwhile you might like to explain why a study has found that, in this real world, water vapour cools and inland cities with high rainfall have lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than those with a drier atmosphere above.

Backradiation does not warm Earth or Venus [or anywhere].
Sunlight does not directly warm the atmospheric gases on Earth
or on Venus.
It is true some people do think backradiation does warm earth,
and these people would probably say it does not matter how a
surface is warmed, but rather that any warm surface will cause backradiation.
It’s also true that a few people seem to think the sunlight directly
warms the CO2 gases on Earth, though the majority of the
deluded think it the warmed Earth surface which is radiating at
longwave infrared that is being affected by the CO2.

It seems to me that the sunlight is mostly warming liquids or
solids. And on Earth the ocean absorbs the most amount of
energy. And on land, sunlight warms the solid surfaces like sand, dirt,
and sidewalks which if in sunlight long enough will warm to the highest temperatures. And if you have a damp sidewalk it remain fairly cool
until such time as it dries up.
And seems the air of the atmosphere is warmed by the surfaces of liquids and solids, though the vast liquid known as oceans mostly warms the air by evaporating into a gas and as gas warms other gases.
Water maximum temperature is limited in how warm the sunlight can heat it, this limit is around 35 C, land surface can become hotter and warm air as much around 50 C.

If Earth was at Venus distance from the Sun, the most the sunlight could
warm water would be around 50 C. On land, the surfaces that warmed to about 70 C on Earth, at Venus distance would warm over 100 C. Such warmer surfaces could warm the air to around 70 C or higher.

When you go to elevation of Venus where the air pressure is equal
the Earth’s air pressure, the air temperature is about 70 C.

“Sunlight does not directly warm the atmospheric gases on Earth
or on Venus.”

Of course it does. Look at any energy diagram for Earth. What do you think the Venus atmosphere is made of? It’s over 96% carbon dioxide – quite able to absorb in the 2.7 micron band, and others like the 15 micron band which is also included in insolation, though I don’t expect you to believe me.

What “it seems” to you is a figment of your imagination, not based on real world physics.

“Of course it does. Look at any energy diagram for Earth. What do you think the Venus atmosphere is made of? It’s over 96% carbon dioxide – quite able to absorb in the 2.7 micron band, and others like the 15 micron band which is also included in insolation, though I don’t expect you to believe me.”

The amount solar energy at 2.7 micron is a tiny portion of the total solar flux. As can be seen, here:

So of the 1363 watts per square at Earth distance.
CO2 is indicated absorb *some* of solar spectrum
between 2000 nm and 2250 nm [2.0 to 2.25 micron].
The intensity between 2000 nm and 2250 nm is
about, .2 watts per nm. So this totals is less than
50 watts per square meter for all the solar energy
between 2000 to 2250 nm.
And CO2 is absorbing about at most 20% of this total.
So you talking at most at about 10 watts of the 1363 watts
per square meter.
The 2700 nm is not shown on graph, but at earth distance
even a very wide band at 2700 and 15,000 nm, could at best total
to about 1 watt per square meter.

So the amount energy you talking about is less than
1 % of the solar flux.

And yes, I don’t think gas is directly warmed by sunlight.
BUT even we assume this is true- if CO2 absorbed of this
portion of solar spectrum and converted 100% of it into the kinetic energy of the gases- it’s insignificant amount of energy.

BPE has a figure of 16.8 watts per square meter for the solar radiation reaching the Venusian surface which I agree is lower than many would expect. Still, his figures end up being not far off the ones I worked out previously even though he’s obviously been much more thorough in his method.

I haven’t had time to digest everything he’s said but I’d just make a couple of points:

The GH effect isn’t just about back radiation from the surface of the planet. If solar energy is absorbed in Venusian clouds and reradiated as IR then that too will be radiated in all directions and warm the Venusian surface.

Even a small amount of heat can produce a high temperature if that heat is trapped . Consider putting an electrical heating element in a thermos flask filled with water. Apply a few watts of power and the water will eventually boil. Heat on the surface of Venus is also effectively trapped by the opaque nature of the Venusian atmosphere to IR radiation.

“Given that equation and those figures, F = 237 watts per square meter for the Earth.

Where did the figure of 1/4 come from? Well, Earth receives sunlight on its two-dimensional cross-sectional area (πR2), but its surface area (4πR2) is three-dimensional.”

Of course Earth doesn’t actually receive sunlight on two-dimensional cross-sectional area (πR2}, rather it actually receives sunlight on a
(4πR2) divided by 2.
Thinking of Earth receiving sunlight as flat disk is only a convenient
way of looking at it. The disk does indicate the max amount sunlight intersecting Earth. And from the is maximum amount of sunlight it is trying to determine how much of the sunlight energy is being captured.
So saying amount captured is total amount times .250 times .306.
So for say 100. It’s 7.65 captured. Or 7.65% of sunlight is captured.
Or 7.65% of sunlight is converted into heat.
Which actually is probably pretty close, but doesn’t tell you the temperature of Earth.
The 237 watts is say how sunlight is warming an average square meter constantly. Say you have something that could store 80% of sunlight.
Meaning 12 hours of sunlight and 80% of the energy is held or build up during the 12 hours. And solar pond is best I can think of which could get close to this [[at least in terms manageable portable scale]]. So I want to compare a place which gets about 237 watts times say 1.25. So 296 watts per square meter with constant sunlight.
How far is this away from the Sun?
Mars distance gets 600 watts per square meter.
So it’s some distance further from the the Sun than Mars is.
So I have space rock and it’s always pointed so it has one side is
facing the Sun. I put a solar pond like thing on the lit surface [the water must kept at a pressure [say 1 atm] so has it has transparent cover].

Now it seems possible that the solar pond would actually be warm enough to have liquid water, but it seems very unlikely the temperature
could reach as high as 10-20 C. And this is constant sunlight with somewhere around 80% sunlight being absorbed. And obviously there losses [I am heating the space rock a little bit and radiating the rest of the energy into space.
But where on Earth would the same solar pond have similar temperature. At 30 degree latitude it should average temperature
of 60 to 70 C. And I would say it would have to be poleward of 50 latitude.

So I would say the Earth does only convert only about 10% of the total sunlight from TOA into heat. Which means if Earth were colder it take awhile gain heat, but once warmer each night loses heat, which regained during the day. So this is the daily and seasonal heat budget.
But it say less about what the temperature of Earth is.
Earth’s Climate is all about the region around tropics which receives
most of solar energy. Somewhere between 30 latitude north and south getting 70- 80% of solar energy reaching the earth surface and converting more than 50% of it into heat.

“The major mechanism by which Earth’s surface cools itself is by radiating about 371 watts per square meter”

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Of all the energy transferring from Earth’s surface to the atmosphere, two-thirds is by non-radiative processes, and one-third by radiation.

It you want to believe this greenhouse propaganda, that’s your choice, but every time you make a wrong statement in physics, I will draw your mistake to the attention of the silent readers.

Do you, tempterrain, really believe that the relatively cold clouds of Venus can radiate to the surface (apparently better than the Sun can) and add more thermal energy, thus heating a surface which is hundreds of degrees warmer than the clouds themselves. ?????????

Garbage. You explain why you think so, but if you fail to use correct physics (which you will) then you too will be exposed for your own travesty of physics – just like tempterrain and many before him on many climate blogs. Be the next!

Carbon dioxide has already almost saturated the Venus atmosphere – over 96/5%. Yet the temperature of the Venus surface can be calculated from the level of Solar insolation, the force of gravity, the specific heat of CO2 and not much else. The amount of incident Solar radiation has been measured from the surface and found to be about 10% of what earth’s surface receives. So that’s is all the energy that can be returned to the atmosphere from which back radiation is then supposed to multiply the energy by over 1,000 times, ending up with far more intensity than the Sun has outside the planet. It would take over 16,000W/m^2 to support the temperature of over 730K, even at the poles which receive less than 1 W/m^2 of direct Solar radiation.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can just as easily radiate energy away. It can’t transfer any heat whatsoever to a warmer surface. If you say it only slows cooling, then how did the Sun heat it to >730K in the first place so that cooling could be slowed?

No, there is a totally different mechanism involved, as in my paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms.”
.

Doug,
Can you explain how Venus came to have all that carbon dioxide?
The excess deuterium (spelled it right for a change) is evidence that Venus had a significant amount of water in its atmosphere at one time. That and the slow progression of the sun along the main sequence that increased the incoming energy from the sun and the increased greenhouse effect from the water vapor that did Venus in.
Nothng wrong with the physics of the greenhouse effect, it is your misunderstanding of physics that is the problem.

BobIf you had read my paper on Planetary Surface Temperatures you would know full well that I am aware that the atmosphere of Venus is about 96.5% carbon dioxide, plus a little nitrogen and not much else of significance. The historic record of how deuterium (heavy hydrogen) caused the release of carbon dioxide from the surface is irrelevant. There is indeed plenty of carbon dioxide absorbing about 98% of the direct incident solar radiation (in the 2.7 micron band especially) and there’s also those clouds absorbing quite a bit. But the clouds are hundreds of degrees colder than the 720K surface, and most of the absorption is in the upper troposphere. So why is the troposphere colder at the top than at the bottom? How does the thermal energy go from a much less hot atmosphere to the far hotter surface? That is the process I’m asking you to explain, and which I may well be the first to explain with correct physics.

So Bob you think I have forgotten about the incident insolation absorbed by the Venus atmosphere. Here’s a quote from my paper …

… the temperature gradient is established naturally in the atmosphere, quite independently of whatever energy is coming from the surface. Clearly there is nowhere near enough energy from the surface of Venus, and possibly not enough even on Earth to warm the very base of the atmosphere.

Each atmosphere is quite capable of absorbing incident Solar radiation. Carbon dioxide, for example, can absorb in the 2 micron band. Thus there is no doubt that enough energy could have been absorbed quite easily over the life of each planet, and probably much more quickly than that.

As the energy is absorbed the more dense regions at the base are able to hold more molecules each with more kinetic energy, and so a higher temperature is measured there. As molecules move between collisions their trajectory must be influenced by the force of gravity, just as happens with any object in flight. This creates a greater propensity for more molecules to accumulate in lower regions of the atmosphere, but numbers are also limited by pressure considerations, and so kinetic energy will propel some molecules upwards. Equilibrium is established between these upward and downward tendencies and, as a result, a uniform temperature gradient is established.

Strictly speaking, the process does not have to involve individual molecules travelling relatively long distances, because the KE is passed from one to another in collision processes. It was originally thought that this diffusion process would ensure uniform temperature at all levels in a closed container. However, entropy must be maintained and this means that the sum (PE+KE) will remain constant for any particular molecule between collisions. The diffusion process “equals out” the above sum, not just KE. Hence, when equilibrium is established, we do indeed observe uniform entropy and temperature in any horizontal plane (because PE is constant) but in a vertical plane what we observe is uniform entropy, and this necessitates a temperature gradient because KE (which determines temperature) must vary with PE in order to keep the sum (PE+KE) constant.

The only alternative would be a naturally developed entropy gradient rather than a temperature gradient. This is about as implausible as it would be for an object not to accelerate when falling in a vacuum.

Now the interesting consequence is that the base of the atmosphere on Venus must therefore have become hot naturally of its own accord and actually heated the surface by both radiation and conduction at the interface. So, just as on Earth, the temperatures are close.

“Doug,
Can you explain how Venus came to have all that carbon dioxide?
The excess deuterium (spelled it right for a change) is evidence that Venus had a significant amount of water in its atmosphere at one time. ”

So the evidence is as according to wiki?
“Some evidence for this scenario comes from the extremely high Deuterium to Hydrogen ratio in Venus’ atmosphere, roughly ~150x that of Earth, since light hydrogen would escape from the atmosphere more readily than its heavier isotope, Deuterium”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect

So what does earth have?
“An atmospheric deuterium emission of 330 R (1 R=106 photons cm−2 s−1) is observed for a tangent altitude of 110 km during Spacelab 1 mission launched on 28 November 1983. The (D/H) ratio of 3×10−4 is slightly enriched over the seawater value of 1.6×10−4.”http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v309/n5971/abs/309771a0.html
Venus:
“Using the high-resolution mode of the Inter-national Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE), we measured hydrogen Lyman-α-emission but found only an upper limit on deuterium Lyman-α-emission, from which we inferred a D/H ratio of less than 2–5 x 10−3. This is smaller by a factor of 3–8 than the D/H ratio derived from measurements by the Pioneer Venus Large Probe, and may indicate either a stratification of D/H ratio with altitude or a smaller overall ratio than previously thought.”http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v338/n6216/abs/338567a0.html

So 150 times 3×10^−4 or 1.6×10^−4. Is 4.5 10^-2 or 2.4 x 10^-2.
And Venus is 2–5 x 10^−3.
Or Venus has upper limit of about 15 times more deuterium not 150 times more than Earth.

And it seems there could many reasons, other than Venus once had ocean which could explain this difference.

Our Moon over billions of years has had hydrogen deposited in the regolith from solar wind. Here is reference:http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/onlinebks/ResourcesNearEarthSpace/resources15.pdf
[which won’t allow me to cut and paste a quote but it gives general info] . So says could 10^16 grams hydrogen from Sun in lunar regolith.
So around 10 billion tons of hydrogen.
90 billion tons of H20 has 10 billion tons of H2.
And billion tons of water is 1 cubic km of water.
This pretty small change in terms planetary quantities, but it seems that Venus atmosphere could capture more solar wind gases than the Moon- because Venus has no magnetic field, it’s closer to the Sun, and gases should better than fine dust at capture. Plus in process of capturing these gases from solar wind, it should favor collecting Deuterium, in same mechanism that with escaping Hydrogen gas from a planet, should favor Deuterium not escaping.
And finally Venus atmosphere has less hydrogen compounds then Earth’s atmosphere and ocean and thereby dilutes the amount deuterium in the ratio [and earth’s has strong magnetosphere blocks much of this solar wind].
Anyhow, lots of reasons why Venus has higher Deuterium and of course one the simple aspect of hydrogen exposed to sunlight [a huge fusion reactor] creates Deuterium. Low Deuterium ratio is found in hydrogen which has the least exposure to neutrons.

Black carbon on ice is almost entirely assembled in the arctic and for simplicity I assume first, that all black carbon is on the Arctic multi year ice only.

The multi year sea ice recently was about 2-3*10^6 km2 plus Greenland is about 4.5 mill km2. This is about 13% of the total ice area.

The surface forcing of snow and ice on multi year ice in the Arctic is then 0.13W/m2/ 0.13 = 1.0 W/m2.

Above wikipedia link says:
“Soot deposition increases surface melt on ice masses, and the meltwater spurs multiple radiative and dynamical feedback processes that accelerate ice disintegration,” according to NASA scientists Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Larissa Nazarenko.[77] As a result of this feedback process, “BC on snow warms the planet about three times more than an equal forcing of CO2.”

Therefore I multiply the forcing by 3, which gives a total black carbon forcing on arctic mutli year ice of:
3*1.0 W/m2 + 0.97 W/m2 = 3.97 W/m2, by far the biggest forcing of all.

(If I assume that there is 5 times more black carbon on multi year ice than on Arctic non multi year ice, I would arrive at 3.22 W/m2).

Ridin’ down the high-way, mis-nomered free-way,
Direction’s been determined by a bunch of
Central planners. You may come to a junction, arrive
At a round-about, even take a fork-in-the-road, but
It won’t do- yer-any-good fer choices have
Been made, and how can yer presume ter decide
Fer yerself. Jest-keep-drivin’ in the zone and direction and at
The designated traffic-speed allowed.

I’d extend that slightly. It makes no policy difference if there is a significant possibility that S will exceed 2.5 degC.
Is anyone saying that there isn’t a significant possibility that it might?

@@@@@

I claim that there is no significant probability that the climate sensitivity of CO2 added to the atrmosphere from curreentg levels will exceed 2.5 C. But Peter maintains, and I agree, that I dont qualify as “anyone”. I am one of Peter’s nobodies. Had Peter said NO possibility, I would have had to agree with him, since no-one has any idea what the CS of CO2 is. But he added “significant”.

Are there any other denizens of CE who will join me in the claim that there is no significant probability that the CS of CO2 aded to the atmosphere from current levels is greater than 2.5 C?

….two unintended consequences are what for some decades I have been calling “the risk compensation effect”.”

..”In one sense the war has indeed been lost. The myth of the efficacy of seat belts and seat belt laws is now so deeply entrenched that it appears to be immune to evidence. It is routinely advanced in support of other safety regulation, such as compulsory cycle helmets, as an example of the efficacy of measures that compel people to be safer than they voluntarily choose to be…”

This just in from EIA. Note catastrophic prediction, for those who object to the CAGW acronym.

“Dear Climate-L colleagues,

I am pleased to announce that this year’s edition of IEA’s “Electricity in a Climate Constrained World” has been published, providing key data and policy analyses on the electricity sector’s climate change challenge. More details are provided below.

Best regards
Christina Hood
Environment and Climate Change Unit, IEA

Electricity in a Climate Constrained World
Each of the last several years has seen a fresh record high in global carbon dioxide emissions, and scientists say if this trend continues the planet will suffer a catastrophic increase in temperature. With electricity generation responsible for about half of recent growth in emissions, a new IEA book looks at ways the power sector can keep up with an improvement in global living standards while minimising the risk of drastic climate change.
In Electricity in a Climate Constrained World, IEA experts consider potential solutions ranging from the design of a Chinese emissions trading programme to stand-by consumption of networked appliances to carbon capture and storage.
The book lays out the reasons electricity generation must get cleaner, and do so quickly. Higher temperatures will affect all aspects of human life, including the very electricity sector that emits so much of the cause of climate change.
In general, the solutions are well-known: increased energy efficiency, greater research and development of low-carbon energy production, and putting a realistic price on carbon. The problem lies in squaring these imperatives with the demand for energy that comes from a richer and more populous world.
Each of the 10 chapters in Electricity in a Climate Constrained World provides specific and detailed information on the book’s mission to help the electricity sector reduce its impact on global temperatures. Some of them apply to particular countries, such as the examination of Brazil’s potential for generating electricity from the by-products of sugarcane, while others monitor the entire sector, like a consideration of how different policy approaches to reducing emissions can work together. Chapters included are:
1- “Saving electricity in a hurry: an update” revisits how countries have dealt with electricity shortfalls, such as the post-Fukushima limitations in Japan. Building on IEA analysis in 2005, looks at best practice for emergency energy-saving programmes, the tools officials can use to cut energy use quickly and how such measures can lead to sustained energy savings.
2- “How can we make an Internet-surfing microwave oven go to ‘sleep’?” looks into the role of smart appliances in increasing household power consumption. Within ten years, there will be about 100 billion devices hooked to the Internet, machines that now run at full power while awaiting online instructions.
3- “State-owned enterprises and their domestic financial base: two keys to financing our low-carbon future” analyses the importance of mobilizing the “quasi-public” sector to invest in low-carbon infrastructure.
4- “From deregulation to decarbonisation of the electricity sector” looks back at changes in the power industry with an eye to reconciling climate-change and industrial policies.
5- “An emissions trading system for China’s power sector” examines how the state-controlled industry can successfully adopt a trading system that will especially less CO2 from smaller and less-efficient coal plants.
6- “Managing policy interactions in the electricity sector for least-cost climate response” shows how the right mix of multiple approaches can significantly reduce the cost of cutting emissions
7- “Tracking clean energy progress in the electricity sector” assesses the transition so far in moving towards a low-emissions approach to electricity production and consumption.
8- “The role of electricity storage in providing electricity system flexibility” addresses the opportunities and problems of different methods of storing electricity when it is sunny or windy and then recovering that power after the sun sets or the air is still.
9- “Potential for bioelectricity in Brazil from sugarcane residual biomass” considers the full potential of using bagasse, which is left over from processing sugarcane, to potentially triple its share in the country’s power mix.
10- “Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: the negative emission concept”, sees a potential win-win situation in generating electricity from biomass and then storing the CO2 underground. Strict standards will be necessary to advance policies supporting this controversial option.

Detailed charts and summaries at the end of the book assess the relationship of electricity and carbon emissions by global region, listing the latest data on electricity output and emissions; CO2 intensity; end-uses; the share of low-carbon technologies; and additions in power generation capacity.
Electricity in a Climate Constrained World is now on sale and may be ordered from the IEA Bookshop. Please send a request by email to books@iea.org, or click here. Accredited journalists who would like to speak with one of the report’s authors, or who would like to receive a review copy of the report, are invited to send a request by e-mail to IEAPressOffice@iea.org.

Climate and Electricity Annual 2011, the previous edition in the series, can now be downloaded here for free. It contains eight more analyses by IEA experts on critical topics for electricity-sector decarbonisation.”

No I am not joking. Most of us look at what is going on in China thru a ‘Western’ lens. I.E. We assume most of the coal is being consumed in the electricity sector as it is in the west.

We assume all coal plants in China are baseload, as they are in the west…but since they have almost no natural gas most coal plants in china are actually ‘peakers’.

That gives us a lot of ‘nonsense’ that various people toss about. i.E. IIRC Peabody multiplies 4 million tons/GW for coal fired plants in China…a reasonably accurate rule of thumb in the US where coal fired plants are mostly baseload…but a worthless metric in China where 60% of generating capacity are ‘peakers’ just as in the US, the difference being ‘Chinese’ peakers are coal fired vs natural gas fired in the US or Europe.

Of course Peabody’s efforts to ‘reassure’ it’s share holders of a robust future coal market then bleed into the ‘climate concerned’ literature and we end up with ‘confirmation’.

A propaganda match made in Hell to be sure. Peabody needs to reassure it’s shareholders and issues ‘optimistic’ projections of China’s coal consumption in the electricity sector…then Climate Alarmists…needing to underscore the ‘need for urgent action’ then confirm it with some nonsense of their own.

China is actually doing reasonably well at controlling coal consumption in the electricity sector. In 2012 renewable’s made up 90+% of the growth in electricity consumption.

Most of the coal in China is not being consumed in the electricity sector. Only about half is being consumed in the electricity sector.

Most of the coal in China is being consumed in steel, cement, chemicals and residential heating.

They have a building boom going on. Continued growth in coal consumption in China is therefore predicated on an acceleration of the building boom going on in China.

Unfortunately, their population growth is very close to non-existent now. In addition there is a lot of room for ‘process improvement’ in their cement industry.

How one accelerates and sustains a building boom where the rate of building already exceeds population growth is beyond my ability to comprehend. Maybe someone at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac can explain it.

Climate alarmists and coal companies seeking to reassure their shareholders have ‘magically’ concluded that this is what will happen.

I would note that Peabody coal is trading at about 1/3 of it’s 2008 peak. If they were going to be making ‘real money’ in China somehow I think their stock would be doing better.

Harry, I am well aware of patterns of coal use in China; in fact I had a client looking at buying power plants there. I used to track coal fired power for Electricity Daily. The building boom may or may not level off but they have just begun to consume electricity. Moreover most power generation is done at the municipal level where the national government has little control. But my point was that the speech you cited in no way means China is capping coal consumption by government action. Economics may cap it but not the central government.

Kim, keep in mind that we were promised a trillion dollars worth of “infrastructure” in exchange for the “stimulus”, and got bupkis instead. There just isn’t any demand for cement in the US. This isn’t like the 1930s, when we got some actual construction out of the “stimulus” deal.

Apparently it never occurred to either the billboard creators or Anthony, that the questions do not present a requirement of picking one statement in contrast to the other. Typically, climate scientists have said that while a specific event like Sandy cannot be attributed to climate change, an extreme event like Sandy is a sign of things to come.

At least some of Anthony’s crew picked up that the two statements are not necessarily in conflict. Gotta give them credit for that.

When 60 mph rear-ends 55 mph there is much more energy in the system than when 60 mph rear ends 10 mph. Yet, the dent will be smaller (unless it all goes off the road , that is), because the differential is smaller.

No eagerness to defend Gore here. He’s a blowhard of the first order. I have disagreed with his politics since he first gained prominence, and grew to have a dislike for his personality (even if I try not to indulge in personality politics). What I do find amusing, however, is how obsessed some “skeptics” are with their hatred of Gore; Yet another example of the rhetorical excess of climate combatants like Watts.

Joshua, I see nothing like that, rather a well-placed disdain for someone who feels qualified to make pronouncements on climate, while very publicly demonstrating his woeful ignorance about the temperature of the Earth’s interior.

Ehrlich (ar’likh)
-n. A spectacularly wrong prediction. (e.g. The tabloid’s year end psychic predictions all turned out to be Ehrlichs.)
-v. 1. To not pan out. (e.g. The ponzi scheme started out fine, but then it Ehrliched.)
2. To not admit a mistake. (e.g. The drunk who caused the five car pileup Ehrliched.)
-adj. Wrong, incorrect. (e.g. The Mayan Calendar end of the world prediction turned out to be Ehrlich.)

I’ve arranged to send the climate back to when it was good. This is being done through an array of taxes, regulations etc based on non-Kardashian models. But I have a prob, so I’m asking around. Here’s the question I’ve been posting.

I still can’t get a date, not even ballpark, for when the climate, especially our Oz climate, was stable/normal/non-extreme. Any ideas, anybody? I’m so disappointed when I’m told that such-and-such an event is the worst or most extreme in a hundred years. Being a redneck doofus, I assume that means we’ll have to wind the clock back further than a hundred years to return to the good old stable times. Clever people see the word “worst” and conclude that something is new, but I see the word “ago” and assume that something is therefore not new.

For example, a hundred years “ago” in my region of Oz we were setting monthly heat and drought records which still stand. If I roll back over 150 years, the Darling River had stopped flowing. If I roll back over 200 years, there was that horror El Nino of the early 1790s. (It was like this year’s heatwave but not relieved by rain after a mere few days. It went on and bloody on.) In between we had wet times, but I’m a bit concerned at going back to the serial storms of the 1970s or the flood catastrophes of the 1890s and 1950s.

Help! I have ordered my Time Machine but don’t know what year to set it for!

Well, we here in the northeast just got 30+ inches of snow last night. Biggest storm ever recorded here in our town. Been digging out all day, helping neighbors, still many side streets with no way to get out yet. Just another extreme weather event that will be used to say ‘this is the new normal’ by those who promote alarmism. Gone are the days days of ‘weather isn’t climate’. So we live in the new normal age…. I dunno if that’s true or if its just ‘back to normal’.

John, back when you were having the mother of all blizzards, in 1888, Sydney had a year so dry the record stands to this day. When the Long Island Express ripped through your north east in 1938 (160 mph, Cat 5, landing as 3) eastern Oz was on the verge of its most lethal natural disaster, the ’38-39 heatwave, which just exceeded the death toll from our heatwave of 1895-96.

KK[Keith Kloor]: I question if there is really this breach of trust between the climate science community and the general public. Again, the average person is probably not paying much attention to these fractious debates between skeptics and a subset of the climate science community. I mean, every profession gets dinged by its share of controversies. The foundation for anthropogenic global warming rests on numerous solid pillars, which you agree with. So how is that a batch of intemperate emails and a decade-old scientific controversy over the hockey stick can rock this foundation, which is what you seem to be arguing?

JC [Judith Curry]: Evidence that the tide has changed include: doubt that was evidenced particularly by European policy makers at the climate negotiations at Copenhagen, defeat of a seven-year effort in the U.S. Senate to pass a climate bill centered on cap-and-trade, increasing prominence of skeptics in the news media, and the formation of an Interacademy Independent Review of the IPCC. Concerns about uncertainty and politicization in climate science are now at the forefront of national and international policy. There is an increasing backlash from scientists and engineers from other fields, who think that climate science is lacking credibility because of the politicization of the subject and the high confidence levels in the IPCC report. While these scientists and engineers are not experts in climate science, they understand the process and required rigor and the many mistakes that need to be made and false paths that get followed.

Further, they have been actively involved in managing science and scientists and in assessing scientists. They will not be convinced that a “likely” level of confidence (66-89% level of certainty) is believable for a relatively new subject, where the methods are new and contested, experts in statistics have judged the methods to be erroneous and/or inadequate, and there is substantial disagreement in the field and challenges from other scientists. The significance of the hockey stick debate is the highlighting of shoddy science and efforts to squash opposing viewpoints, something that doesn’t play well with other scientists. Energy Secretary and Nobel Laureate Steven Chu made this statement in an interview with the Financial Times:

First, the main findings of IPCC over the years, have they been seriously cast in doubt? No. I think that if one research group didn’t understand some tree ring data and they chose to admit part of that data. In all honesty they should have thrown out the whole data set.

But you don’t need to be a Nobel laureate to understand this. I have gotten many many emails from scientists and engineers from academia, government labs and the private sector. As an example, here is an excerpt from an email I received yesterday: “My skepticism regarding AGW has been rooted in the fact that, as an engineer/manager working in defense contracts [General Dynamics], I would have been fired, fined (heavily) and may have gotten jail time for employing the methodology that [named climate scientists] have used.”

One reason is a simple and and relates to a quite mild correction I made. That the difference between figures being quoted on crude oil was the inclusion in one of natural gas liquids and not in the other. Webby insisted that the difference was biofuels – which didn’t figure in either. A simple point and so began the usual song and dance of obfuscation and misdirection. Webby complains that I am a larrikin – anti authoritarian. I am sure that if he had any I would defer. But as I have explained – the larrikin hero is our most sacred ideal of nationhood. It is an ideal of honesty, fair play, respect for women and care for children, a lack of pretence and an unflinching egalitarianism. The Aussie larrikin has only contempt for obfuscation and prevarication.

Odd as well – this repetitive sockpuppet plaint. Everyone knows who I am – i was made clear up front. Biosketch. Robert styles himself in the blogosphere as a Chief Hydrologist. ‘Cecil Terwilliger (brother to Sideshow Bob) was Springfield’s Chief Hydrological and Hydrodynamical Engineer. He opined that this was a sacred vocation in some cultures. The more I thought about this the more it resonated with me. I am an hydrologist by training, profession and (much more) through a deep fascination with water in all its power and beauty. Given the importance of water to us practically and symbolically, there is more than an element of the sacred.’

Of late I have dropped the handle to see if the level of civility from such as the webnutcolonoscope improved. Unfortunately not in my dealing with webby in particular – so I have slipped back into the old and comfortable sockpuppet. I have said this to him. How often do I need to say these things to avoid the idiotic repetition of pointless complaints? Btw – I can neither confirm or deny that I am Captain Kangaroo – it is a closely guarded secret of the climate war privy only to a few on a need to know basis – and cowgirls with lassos.

The complaint about the simple energy equation is odd indeed. Because we are talking differentials energy is obviously in units of Joules per second – or unit energy. There is a similar hydrological equation of storage.

dS/dt = I – Q

Where dS/dt is the change in storage in a reach, I is inflow and Q is outflow. I and Q are expressed in terms of m3/s and not m3 – it doesn’t any sense at all unless you have time varying quantities on both sides of the equation. Does this need to be stated explicitly in such a simple formulation? I don’t think so – it is obvious that we are dealing with time varying quantities because it is a differential equation.

Having studied both engineering – with a major in hydrology – and environmental science. You may assume that I am familiar with dimensional analysis. So we have several pointless and repetitive quibbles, and lies and prevarication – all of which I find contemptible for a lack of manly virtues. Which being Australian and egalitarian we apply to women as well. A larrikin girl is a force of nature.

This is such a simple idea of the change in energy in the system – effectively global warming or cooling – results from an energy imbalance at TOA. By all means convert your power flux to energy terms by multiplying by time – but don’t bother to prevaricate and obfuscate any more. Derive the diffrentil for yourself in energy terms and express it how you will.

The equation is a complete description of the global energy budget – simple aye. You can use ARGO to determine whether dS/dt is positive or negative and SORCE TSI and CERES trends to look at why.

dS/dt = Energy in – Energy out …by the 1st law of thermodynamics.
I suppose you are capable of understanding simple 1st order differential equations? dS/dt is the change in energy stored in the global system as a result of an energy imbalance at TOA – which I believe is the standard explanation.

The ineptitude of the Chief is clear. He can’t even get a simple differential equation dimensionally correct.

On the left hand side he has something per unit time, while on the right hand side he has energy units. He posts this over and over again, without ever correcting it. ,

The worst part is that he tries to hide his mistake by commenting in a different thread, thinking that no one would be able to track down the offending math.

If you want an example of a major league scientific poseur and multiple sockpuppet troll, the chief is your go-to guy. I like the way his Aussie Larrikin buddies like Ianl8888 stick up for him.

It really shows the difference in the levels of abilities on this site. We have guys like Pekka, Nick Stokes, and Mosh willing to dive into the physics while all the skeptics look on like frightened kittens.

And then old Chief comes is and says with mock authority:

“I suppose you are capable of understanding simple 1st order differential equations? “

And then he completely messes up the one and only equation that he has ever posted here, and one that he has repeatedly copied-and-pasted for the last couple of years. This is also the one equation that he never corrects, even though we always tell him that it is not dimensionally correct.

Where ΔS is the change is energy stored in the climate system over any perod. This is a statement of energy conservation.

We can divide both sides by time to get:

dS/dt (J/s) = energy in (J/s) – energy out (J/s)

The equation is a complete description of the global energy budget. You can use ARGO to determine whether dS/dt is positive or negative and SORCE TSI and CERES trends to look at why.

Now let’s get back to the hydrological equation of storage.

ΔS (m3) = inflow (m3) – outflow (m3)

Where ΔS is the change in hydrologic storage in the river reach or a pond or dam. We can again divide by time to get:

dS/dt (m3/s) = inflow (m3/s) – outflow (m3/s)

The webster simply confuses the issue as usual. He has not the slightest clue about anything very much – and is loud and obnoxiously insulting invariably. The differential is derived in the usual way and expressed in a standard notation. He makes much of something that is implicit in the derivation and goes off on some ridicuous crusade about dimensions.

The formula is conceptually correct. The change in energy storage in the climate system – effectively warming or cooling – is equal to the difference between energy in and energy out in any period. This is an idea that is the core of AGW. Now he may think about this in any way he likes – but to wilfully continue to spread confusion is beyond the pale.

It is a way of thinking about trends in TOA radiant flux, total solar irradiance and atmospheric and ocean heat content.

It is ok to look at an impoundment’s net change in static energy as simply the change in volume. But when you “average” the volume change by dividing by the time period, I would think you are calculating the power. Still looks messed up to me. How about we let Peter Lang settle this?

Also, I just went through all 13 chapters of hydrologic equations in this book. And so will have to cut you at least some slack.

It’s weird, but some symbols may have different meanings, depending upon context. For example, Q may be transport rate with (expected) dimension volume/time. Or it may be runoff depth (9.3). Even weirder, even in the same context (such as runoff depth) the dimensions may not be consistent you can use either mm OR mm/hr(!) provided all units are consistent within the same calculation.

No it’s not.
The equation you gave is really just a definition of net power flow. Energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval.
When you write:
dS/dt = Energy in – Energy out
That is fundamentally and conceptually incorrect.

No wonder you don’t understand that a net radiative imbalance will lead to heating of the earth.
You don’t seem to understand any of the fundamental principles of physics.

This is a statement of energy conservation and shows the warming or cooling of the planet (ΔS) as a function of energy imbalance at TOA.

The power flux is defined as Watts or Watts/m2. Unit energy is defined as the power flux for 1 second. 1 Watt for 1 second is 1 Joule in SI units. I realise Americans are staunch defenders of imperial units – and so miss some of the easy connections that in the ‘Système International d’unités’.

Power is a flux at any one time – energy is a product of the power flux over a period of time.

Joule (J) – energy, work, heat – dimensions are kg⋅m2⋅s^−2

Watt (W) – power, radiant flux – dimensions are kg⋅m2⋅s^−3

Multiply 1 Watt by 1 second – and you get what?

It is amazing that the webster – who I thought was an electrical engineer – can get such basic definitions of power and energy wrong. No wonder he has problems with what is a simple statement of energy imabalance.

But the energy imbalance is not the contrived one of some 0.85 W/m2 – but the real one that is seen in data at top of atmosphere.

Here is the ccean heat content – http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/key_figures/OHC_update.jpeg – so we presume that the energy imbalance is positive in the period. SORCE is negative a little. So the change comes from energy out. This is as both reflected shortwave and emitted longwave. The big change in the period is in reflected shortwave. Ergo – it is clouds that have changed the energy balance in the period.

As I discussed with mosher earlier – the epistemic problem is the reliablitity of the data – but the data is what it is.

Surprise me webby – let’s see what new lies and prevarication will emerge.

Your hydrological equation represents the change in gravitational potential energy due to a change in impoundment volume. Set one or another of inlet or outlet to zero, put a turbine in the other and let things flow.

As gravitational potential energy is converted into rotational kinetic energy, the instantaneous power delivered to the turbine (not counting inefficiencies) will be dS/dt, no? But that is what you are calling average energy.

btw all Americans are schooled in SI units. Engineers and scientists work in them. Conversions to English units, if required, is done in the last step by applying a conversion factor.

The storage is the difference in areas between two graphs. Zero at some time in the future – increasing while the inflow is greater than the outflow – and decreasing when outflow is greater than inflow. It is a flood hydograph – so not constant but varies through a storm. In this case the objective is to reduce downstream flooding by routing a storm flow through a temporary water storage.

where:
S is the temporary storage volume
t is the base time of the inflow hydrograph
qi is the peak inflow rate
qo is the peak outflow rate.

And my immediate thought was this: q is flow rate (m3/s). Given constant pressure, power is proportional to flow rate.

Granted this is my first exposure to hydrologic storage equations. But how would one calculate the dissipated power in this case? See? You would calculate your “avg. net energy” (difference the qs and divide by time). Then multiply by contant conversion factor and voila. dissipated power. Something like that.

The formula you cite is one used to approximately determine the size of detention basin needed to reduce a flood peak.

It is the first step in design and not one that I would generally use. I would just totally guess and run it through a rainfall/runoff model with a basin routine.

Try Bernoulli’s Principle – ‘can be derived from the principle of conservation of energy. This states that, in a steady flow, the sum of all forms of mechanical energy in a fluid along a streamline is the same at all points on that streamline. This requires that the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy remain constant. Thus an increase in the speed of the fluid occurs proportionately with an increase in both its dynamic pressure and kinetic energy, and a decrease in its static pressure and potential energy. If the fluid is flowing out of a reservoir, the sum of all forms of energy is the same on all streamlines because in a reservoir the energy per unit volume (the sum of pressure and gravitational potential ρ g h) is the same everywhere.’

The change in storage is the volume at one time less that volume some time later. This is equal to the difference between inflow and outflow – in m3 or whatever Americans use for volume – in the period.

The differential is simply a convention that allows other things to be done – such as analytically solving it for certain configurations or numerically solving it using the Runge-Kutta 4th order scheme or any of a number of numerical methods.

I think I will leave the energy budget at – ΔS = Energy in – Energy out – in future. As there is only a mixture of anomalies and absolute values that are quite likely to be wrong – no actual calcualtion is possible. Only the trend in SORCE-TSI, CERES and ARGO is your friend.

dS/dt (J/s) = Energy in (J/s) – Energy out (J/s) – in the expecttion that there can be no one clueless enough to say something like – ‘energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval’.

The differential gives us some clues as to what sort of operations can be performed to give meaningful results. I have of course a job as an engieer and environmental scientist. And you are utterly pathetic.

The equation you gave is really just a definition of net power flow. Energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval…

You have also demonstrated where the delta is going, which is straight into the heat sink of the ocean. The ocean partially sinks the excess heat without raising the average radiating temperature, and thus creating a radiative imbalance with incoming solar. Part of the so-called “missing heat”. After all this effort, once again, Chief scores an own-goal.

Again and again and again we get nonsense, prevarication and obfuscation from this person. He finally agrees to the simple notion of the global energy budget – and then goes into a rant about missing heat. I show him the data and how it is understood in terms of the global energy budget and he calls me a mad man. The pattern is familiar and unfortunate.

So you tried to fix it and now all you can do is create recursive links to yourself.

You have also demonstrated where the delta is going, which is straight into the heat sink of the ocean. The ocean partially sinks the excess heat without raising the average radiating temperature, and thus creating a radiative imbalance with incoming solar. Part of the so-called “missing heat”. After all this effort, once again, Chief scores an own-goal.

Where exactly did that heat come from – the sun was cooling in the period -http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png

Energy in declined?

So energy out must have declined either as reflected shortwave or emitted infrared. Guess which one?

This data is the best that we have ever had – and to reject any of it wholesale is just stupid. For instance – should we accept that net radiant flux at TOA is increasing and not that reflected short wave decreased and IR did nothing?

This is simply a matter of understanding the simple energy budget and seeing which way the power flows.

‘To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.’

The equation you gave is really just a definition of net power flow. Energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval…

You have also demonstrated where the delta is going, which is straight into the heat sink of the ocean. The ocean partially sinks the excess heat without raising the average radiating temperature, and thus creating a radiative imbalance with incoming solar. Part of the so-called “missing heat”. After all this effort, once again, Chief scores an own-goal.

Again and again and again we get nonsense, prevarication and obfuscation from this person. He finally agrees to the simple notion of the global energy budget – and then goes into a rant about missing heat. I show him the data and how it is understood in terms of the global energy budget and he calls me a mad man. The pattern is familiar and unfortunate.

– in the expecttion that there can be no one clueless enough to say something like – ‘energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval’.

The dimensions are simple to the level of triviality. Surely it is a matter of trying to confuse something simple. Although his definitions of power and energy above are just so wrong as to be incredible for something so basic. Such unbelievably basic errors – such a narrow exposure to scientific literature – and behviour in such poor taste and bad faith.

I have been forthcoming and honest – but have wasted enough time and energy with this person.

Yes, it indeed looks like the chief invented his own set of units to describe S. It has the units of mass * length^2 / time.
Never ran into that one before, perhaps Chief’s space cadets have seen it in some alternate universe.

It’s ok to use a hydrological approach for energy balance calculations. However, when analogizing the temporary storage equation you made a couple of mistakes.

Look at two forms of the eq.

(1) S = t ( qi − qo ) /2

(2) ΔV = (vin -vout )/2

In (2), it is easy to see that the proper way to calculate temporary storage (analgous to energy) is to average by dividing by two, NOT TIME!

Gee I will have to go back to hydrological school and explain how they are all wrong.

The first form – as I have explained – is an approximation used for initial design. It desn’t mean anything in terms of a physical description.

The second is simply incorrect. We are not averaging but simply taking a value at t1 and subtracting a value at t2 to get the difference.

If the global heat content is x Joules at r1 and y Jules at t2 – the change (delta) is x – y.

So we have – let’s stick with energy –

ΔS = energy in – energy out

Each of these has units of Joules. Now we can leave it like that and it is perfectly OK. Or we can divide by time to express it as a 1st order differential equation. The differential is obtained by considering time in the usual way – we really want to divide by time. The units would all be Joules/s in that case. Either way it is a simple statement of energy conservation. You can then use ocean heat content and SORCE and CERES data to answer the question of whether the world is warming or cooling – from 2 different angles ocean heat and energy imbalance – and whether it is due to total solar irradiance, reflected shortwave or emitted infrared. It is simply a way of thinking rigorously about the planetary energy budget and trends in energy. An actual calculation is not possible because of the vagaries of data – but it is still instructive and the data is improving all the time.

If you want to look at hydraulic energy – look at Bernoulli’s Principle as I have said above. There are factors of kinetic energy, potential energy, pressure and density to be taken into account to look at energy in a flow. Velocity is just one factor in the hydraulic energy equation – so your ‘analogy ‘ is not even close.

As for webby – I suppose I can waste a little more time.

Yes, it indeed looks like the chief invented his own set of units to describe S. It has the units of mass * length^2 / time.
Never ran into that one before, perhaps Chief’s space cadets have seen it in some alternate universe.

The wildly inaccurate characterisation from webby is quite astonishing. I can only think it is deliberate BS or some strange aberration of reasoning. Either way – it is not worth considering. I advise you to ignore it.

By the way – the equations are not analogies. Both are continuity equations. Hydrology is conservation of mass and the energy budget is conservation of energy. They have the same form and both are derived from 1st principles.

Kim @ 5.15pm, ‘Erlich’s twitter feed, Kim? More like cawing of crows
in immemorial elms:
‘Light thickens
And the crow makes wings to the rooky wood.
Good things of day begin to droop and drowse,
While night’s black agents to their preys do rouse.’

Could it be that that the climate controversy is now over, at least as far as policy is concerned?

“Luke-warmers”, when pressed for a 90% confidence figure for Climate Sensitivity will usually give a value somewhere in the range of 1.2C to 2.4C.

In giving this, they are stating that it is likely that if we continue business as usual up to 2050, the planet is going to cross the 2C increase threshold at some point in the future.

The 2C threshold has been set as something to be avoided, since it is projected to mean that hundreds of millions of people will be subjected to water problems (droughts and floods), with 30% of species, including corals, at risk of extinction. There will be problems with food production. Some regions may gain, but others will lose. Damage from floods and storms will increase, especially around the coast, and there will be major health effects.

Of course, some lukewarmers will then begin to argue that the effects of a 2C increase have been wrongly forecast on the alarmist side, or that the precautionary principle can be set aside.

On the other hand, other lukewarmers may well agree that we should continue with the decarbonisation programme that is already started in many countries and localities.

This is not to call an end to the fun for the climatologists. There is still plenty to argue about, but as far as policy goes, someone should tell the policy makers the good news that the reasonable climate skeptics are now on the side of decarbonising the world economy.

docrichard you write “Could it be that that the climate controversy is now over, at least as far as policy is concerned?”

No, definitely not. Those of us who believe in the scientific method, insist that the only proper values for climate sensitivity must be based on empirical data; hypothetical, meaningless estimations, which are the basis for the numbers which you have quoted, are useless; for any purpose, but particularly for advising politicians.

Such little empirical data as we have gives a strong indication that the climate sensitivity for CO2 added to the atmosphere from current levels is indistinguishable from zero.

Jim
I do not know of any work that concludes that climate sensitivity is zero. Do you?
It would imply that any factor heating the global climate by 1C would end up cooling it by 1C. It is difficult to put forward a mechanism for that.
Empirical, observational works, of which there have been a few recently, come up with a CS of between 1C and 2.4C.
Bishop Hill, a well-known contrarian blogger, covers this figure here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/10/1/climate-sensitivity-and-the-stern-report.html
He has a blanket ban on any work that involves a computer model.

docrichard, you write “I do not know of any work that concludes that climate sensitivity is zero. Do you?”

Sort of. It is basically my own idea; I can never publish it, but I post it regularly on Climate Etc., and any other blogs I can. So far, no-one has convinced me that I am wrong. I have been unable to find any measurable CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. This does not mean that one does not exist; merely that I cannot find one. Beenstock and Reingewertz analysed this sort of data using advanced statictical techniques (which I dont understand), and concluded that there is no CO2 signal.

IF, and it is a mighty big IF, but if there is no measurable CO2 signal against the background noise of natural variability, then it is axiomatic from simple signal to noise ratio physics, that the effect of CO2 on global temperatures cannot be measured. The way I put it, there is an indication from the limited empirical data we have, that the climate sensitivity of CO2, added to the atmosphere from current levels, is indistinguishable from zero

But that is the extent of my reasoning. It is very basic and very simple, but I am convinced by it

Manacker
Atmospheric physicist, whether mainstream or contrarian, are agreed that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a global temperature rise of about 1.2C. Climate sensitivity estimations are concerned with the response of the climate to this 1.2C increase.

I know that many do not believe in the greenhouse effect, do not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and do not believe that CO2 has increased in concentration since 1750. I’ve not found that meaningful dialogue is possible with these beliefs.

Manacker said “An equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.2C to 2.4C does NOT result in warming exceeding 2C.”
In that 2C is included in the probability range, policy makers must plan for that contingency.

No, Doc. You are lumping luke-warmers in with the wrong crowd, trying to stir them in with climate zealots. The fact is that feedbacks on the 1 degree no-feedbacks case mooted by the warmists are decidedly negative but you have to read the thermodynamics text and work the problems to know that. Luke-warmers are those who believe CO2 may have some small effect on climate with only a slight probability of discernible harm but several important benefits. They are a hedge against warmism which is not science but a barely concealed political agenda.

Yes, to decarbonising the world economy, BUT, only if we do it so there is an increase in global GDP growth rate, not a decrease! I’ll repeat that because, many CAGW alarmists don’t want to hear it, or try to pretend it was not a critically important caveat by those wanting rational policies.

Yes to decarbonising the world economy, IF and ONLY IF, the chosen policies will produce an increase in GDP growth rate, not a decrease in GDP growth rate!

The policies that have been advocated by the CAGW alarmists for the past 20 years, and are still being advocated by them, will not work in the real world. They will not be accepted. There is a better way, but the CAGW alarmists, who are mostly of Left / Socialist / ‘Progressive’ ideological persuasion, are implacably opposed to rational policies. So progress is blocked, and has been for at least 20 years, and I’d suggest 50 years.

However, it seems that the people advocating these schemes, have not properly considered the consequences of such schemes. What is the probability that the world can agree to a Treaty, a Protocol, or whatever to price carbon? Have they understood the assumptions that underpin the proponents’ claims that carbon pricing is the least cost way to reduce GHG emissions?

One of the main assumptions underpinning the economic analyses is that a carbon price must be universal/ If it is not universal, it will not succeed. The reason is that the cost for the particpants increases greatly as participation rate decreases. For example, if only 50% of GHG emissions are included in the scheme the cost penalty for the participants is estimated to be 250% (Nordhaus, ‘A Question of Balance’ p198 http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf ). That means, for example, 100% of the 195 countries must capture 50% of emissions in their pricing scheme, or 50% of countries must include 100% of GHG emissions. No exemptions. All 23 Kyoto greenhouse gasses must be included and all emissions sources must be included. That is where an international emissions pricing scheme would have to end up.

Not only that, but the 195 countries must maintain the system, in unison, for 100 years and beyond. For example they must all raise the carbon price or reduce the number of permits, or whatever is the agreed mechanism, in unison periodically for 100 years and beyond.

We need to recognise these real issues before we embark on this policy approach. Many people do, but the advocates don’t want to even consider it. They seem to want to ignore it.

It amazes me that the advocates for carbon pricing think it is realistic, given real world politics, diplomacy and economic constraints?

If the world is not going to implement a top down, UN regulatory approach, such as price carbon – and 20 years of failed climate conferences shows it is not likely to do so – why would Australia or other countries be silly enough to believe they can lead the world by example (that’s the usual reason given for Australia’s carbon tax and ETS?

How much will it change the climate if Australia and a few other countries price carbon?

What will be the economic cost to the world from reducing GDP? What is the human cost of such a policy? These questions cannot be dismissed, because rationalist are very well aware of the answers.

The World Economic Forum “Global Risks 2013″ says the greatest risks facing the world in the next decade are “Major systemic financial failure”, “Chronic fiscal imbalances” and “Severe income disparity”. Carbon pricing would reduce GDP growth rate and increase these risks facing the world.

There is a better way. It’s the freer market approach. An example of such an approach is to remove the regulatory impediments that have been imposed on nuclear power as a result of 50 years of anti-nuclear activism (by the same Left ideologues who are the proponents of carbon pricing and UN regulatory approach).

I will say that fossil fuel reduction will rectify far more than AGW, namely:
Ocean acidification
Peak oil (which still exists, despite the increasingly desperate forays into Extreme Energy)
Acid rain (which is still a problem)
Air pollution, which still has major health effects
Energy security – UK dependence on imports of energy, which also has an impact on:
Balance of payments/Trade deficit (a major problem in the UK)
Fuel poverty, which will be ameliorated by conservation efforts, reducing fuel bills
Unemployment and recession (jobs will be created in the energy conservation and renewables sectors)

I take your point, getting a universal global agreement seems a long way off, but I have found that political agreement always takes much longer than a rational being would hope for.

On the positive side, there is an increasing shift towards renewable energy, and carbon taxes are being introduced in some more enlightened countries.

You lucky fella, dr; you’re gonna get a greener world from more CO2 and perhaps a little warmer too, unless Nature has an unexpected say in the matter. How wonderful to be so hopeful.
=====================

I take your point, getting a universal global agreement seems a long way off, but I have found that political agreement always takes much longer than a rational being would hope for.

Pricing carbon is irrational, not rational. Therefore, it will not succeed. This should be clear by now. Over Twenty years of failed climate conferences should be all the evidence to convince any rational person. The rational approach is to remove the irrational constraints we’ve placed on energy markets over the past 50 years, especially those that make nuclear power far more expensive than it should and could be.

On the positive side, there is an increasing shift towards renewable energy,

No. Mandating and subsidising renewable energy is the opposite of rational policy. It is a classic example of irrational policy. It is one of many examples of irrational policies that have caused emissions to be higher than they would have been if we’d alolowed rational policies. It is an example of why progress is blocked.

We live in hope.

The impression I’ve gained from your comments is you live in the dream world of the Greenies.

By the way, I am not persuaded that 2C warming is negative on balance. The ‘Damage Function’ is highly uncertain and, despite my asking repeatedly, none of the CAGW alarmists have been able to show otherwise. [I expect it is exaggerated to the high side]. To understand what I am asking about regarding the ‘Damage Function’, read the sub thread of comments starting here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/12/open-thread-weekend-6/#comment-285236

YES to replacing new coal-fired electrical power plants with either nuclear or natural gas, where this makes economic sense.

A power plant sitting on top of a coal mine obviously should be coal-fired, just as power plants in regions with abundant natural gas (especially those generating peak power) should be gas-fired.

But this still leaves a lot of the growth in electrical power generation that could come from nuclear (which is competitive today in most cases). And this represents over 50% of the total fossil fuel use today.

Fuel for transportation is another story. Hydrogen from nuclear is way too expensive (and has serious safety problems). Cost effective bio-fuels do not exist today. So we are stuck with fossil fuels, and cannot yet “decarbonize” this part of the economy.

It appears reasonable that the world will gradually move away from fossil fuels for all those applications where economically viable alternates can be found; but this will not result in a total “decarbonization” of the world economy.

And, as you write, a (direct or indirect) carbon tax will accomplish nothing positive (and a lot of negative for the end consumers who eventually have to pick up the tab).

I believe we agree, but I just wanted to make sure by spelling it out a bit more clearly.

- Fuel poverty, which will be ameliorated by conservation efforts, reducing fuel bills

Whazzat? (A carbon tax will increase not reduce fuel bills).

- Unemployment and recession (jobs will be created in the energy conservation and renewables sectors)

A pipe dream, doc. More jobs will be lost from decarbonization than gained.

So much for you list of imaginary hobgoblins.

If there is no “C” in “CAGW” anymore, as a result of latest much lower estimates of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, then there is no good reason to “decarbonize” EXCEPT where this makes economic sense (as Peter Lang has already stated).

I agree the World does not have viable alternatives available to substitute for all fossil fuels now.

But I believe we will have viable alternatives that are cheaper than fossil fuels, and better on all the key criteria, in the future. We probably will not substitute for 100% of fossil fuel use but will substitute sufficient to stop atmospheric CO2 concentrations increasing, and perhaps reduce them (if that is what we find is necessary (we don’t know yet)).

I believe your comment is pointing out that I did not clearly state the time scales over which decarbonisation of the global economy will or could take place. I expect the global economy will be sufficiently decarbonised, to satisfy whatever turn out to be the requirements, by not later than 2100 and quite likely well before that.

I feel, if it is shown to be important to do so (we are not there yet), the world can reduce global GHG emission by around 50% by soon after mid century with nuclear power replacing most fossil fuels for electricity generation and cheap, low-emissions electricity replacing some fossil fuels for transport and heating. (The transport fuels may be produced using cheap low emissions electricity). There will, of course, be many other technologies involved that we have no idea about now.

I agree we really have no idea what the future may bring. There are many risks and opportunities facing humanity other than GHG emissions.

Yes, to decarbonising the world economy, BUT, only if we do it so there is an increase in global GDP growth rate, not a decrease!

I’d agree with you that this will happen before 2100, not to 100%, but maybe to 75% or 80%, with the remaining fossil fuels lasting us indefinitely at the lower consumption rate (primarily as feedstocks for petrochemicals, fertilizers, etc.).

And building cost-competitive nuclear power plants instead of new coal-fired plants could become a big part of this decarbonization process, provided we can get the anti-nuke green lobby groups and frightened politicians out of the way.

Geo-engineering is a non value added waste of money involving possible unforeseen negative consequences. And a carbon tax (direct or indirect) is stupid, as it also adds no value. So we need to vote politicians who support this sort of rubbish out of office.

Until then, I’d sat natural gas is a non-polluting, low-carbon fuel that seems to be increasingly available world-wide in shale deposits, so let’s go for it, both as a source of peak load electrical power and as a motor fuel.

I agree with all your points, but not to keen to push for natural gas replacing coal for electricity generation (except where it is cheaper, which is not the case in Australia). I’d prefer to keep natural gas for more valuable uses in the future and simply wait until nuclear is cheaper than coal and go straight to nuclear for electricity generation. Australia cannot do much until the costs of nuclear come down. And that it is largely dependent on the US removing the impediments to low cost nuclear power.

The US President could make it happen. Bush and Cheyney removed many of the impediments which were blocking the US from having low cost oil and gas. Removal of the blocks enabled the oil and gas industry to give the USA cheap and abundant gas (and some more oil). Obama or the next US President could do the equivalent for low-cost nuclear. It will be easier, because the issue is mostly with the NRC and involves the government’s design approval process and its lack of focus on cost of electricity.

“Vilified by global warming zealots, Canadian Steve McIntyre, who was passing through Auckland this week, told NBR ONLINE the impact of global warming is likely to be “about half” of what current scientific models are showing.”

Steve McIntyre has always been a voice of sanity and reasonableness. It’s a pity he’s been so vilified by the activist climate scientists and CAGW zealots. He did what the paid climate scientists should have been doing all along – i.e. checking and trying to reproduce all the important results.

“Vilified by global warming zealots, Canadian Steve McIntyre, who was passing through Auckland this week, told NBR ONLINE the impact of global warming is likely to be “about half” of what current scientific models are showing.”

It sounds like McIntyre is admitting human emissions WILL lead to thermageddon, he’s just saying it will take twice as much emissions to achieve thermageddon than the models show.

And that’s comforting how? Skeptics like Willis Eschenbach seem to think we’ll find twice as much to emit just fine, so what exactly stands between business as usual and thermageddon?

Is the Eschenbach/McIntyre strategy for saving human civilization to rely on hope and luck? surely not!

Girma
The article is not clear, but if Steve McIntyre means warming is only half of what the climatologists think, and they expect 2-4C in response to doubling of CO2, if follows that Steve expects 1-2C. This touches the 2C threshold which is seen as the boundary of what is humanly tolerable.
This is my point – the reasonable sceptics are now in agreement with the climatologist community – human greenhouse gases are taking us somewhere where we do not want to be going.

“which is seen as the boundary of what is humanly tolerable.” Nonsense. A leading German climate scientist was asked to provide a number which could be used to simplify debate and campaigning. He picked 2C as a nice, easy number, compatible with IPCC-projected increases for the not-to-distant future. He admitted in a lengthy Der Spiegel interview that there was no scientific basis for this number, no identifed tipping-points or runaway thresholds, it just served the CAGW polemicists purposes. The number has nothing to do with what is “humanly tolerable,” as must be obvious given that humans exist in temperatures ranging from about -50C to +60C. 2C is neither here nor there.

I don’t have the article, but it was posted in translation at no-tricks-zone.

Steve McIntyre article cited by Girma, 10/2 @6.18am, supports Jim Cripwell’s stated problem re the absence of empirical evidence
showing the effect of .Co2 on global temperatures. SM says:
‘The onus is on the people arguing it’s a big problem, to really show
in an engineering quality report that it is a big problem.’

As Girma notes, McIntyre thinks global warming is likely to be half
what the models are predicting.

For all of you who obsess about ‘Arctic Ice Extent’, you’ll be overjoyed to know that yesterday’s extent is greater than on the equivalent day in 2012, 2011, 2010, 2007 and 2006.

Since the record low achieved last year was widely heralded as a surefire indicator of the coming Thermocalypse, can we therefore assume that this return to normality is an equally surefire indicator of its postponement or cancellation?

If not, why not?

And since unusual heavy snow in Southern UK in the last three years was blamed by the Met Office on the melting of the Arctic Ice, can we also assume that we’ll soon be back to the conditions where our children won’t know what snow is?

I have never been at all interested in Arctic Sea Ice extent and can’t see what all the fuss is about – one way or the other. Sea ice is nasty cold stuff and apart from a little chap called Pipaluk when I was a kid, I don’t give a stuff about polar bears.

And I remember pictures of the subs at the North Pole when I was young – so it doesn’t bug me to know that the ice is thin or disappeared.or not.

Which is why I prefaced my remarks with

‘For all of you who obsess about ‘Arctic Ice Extent’.

But I am very interested in doom;laden predictions of imminent Thermocalypse. It is sooooooo much fun pointing out when they don’t come true.

Year to year variations mean little, especially like last year’s when it was an unusual weather event that strongly contributed to the melt. If we start seeing many more of these arctic hurricanes (or whatever it was) then it may be clear proof of a change in weather patterns. No one disputes that the arctic is warming and that summer ice extent has gone down. It is the catastrophic nature that is contested and whether it will be exponential (tipping points and all that). It is quite interesting that the rates are more rapid both for increase and decrease for the thin ice forming and melting, although it is not surprising once you reflect on it for a few seconds. As always, we need to watch for another ten years to see if there is a 30 year cycle (we only have satellite data since 1979) and see if the ice does recover during the summers. If we have a few summers where the ice gets back to the average and stays there, it should be reassuring to those predicting catastrophe. One would think.

“Since the record low achieved last year was widely heralded as a surefire indicator of the coming Thermocalypse, can we therefore assume that this return to normality is an equally surefire indicator of its postponement or cancellation?”

I at least understand that the anomaly in February tells us nothing about whether summer decline is continuing.

So frickin obvious. Why do you tools come up with such easily falsified arguments? It’s like you didn’t even check previous years to see all the instances where the anomaly has been high in winter and yet it’s not made a blind bit of difference to the summer decline.

Just checking….there seems to be a popular meme amongst the dogmatic anti-AGW’ers that more snow means that AGW is a fraud, or if you are of the CGC mindset, that’s it’s a sign of the catastrophic cooling that is coming.

‘Just checking….there seems to be a popular meme amongst the dogmatic anti-AGW’ers that more snow means that AGW is a fraud, or if you are of the CGC mindset, that’s it’s a sign of the catastrophic cooling that is coming’

Well since i don’t fall into either of those categories, we can safely discount your ‘argument’ so far.

As a reminder, the question is this

‘Since unusual heavy snow in Southern UK in the last three years was blamed by the Met Office on the melting of the Arctic Ice, can we also assume that we’ll soon be back to the conditions where our children won’t know what snow is?’

You can take it as read that we all agree that snow is a form of precipitation. And purely semantic arguments are not persuasive.

that more snow means that AGW is a fraud, or…that’s it’s a sign of the catastrophic cooling that is coming.

They simply have concluded that AGW is not the principal driving force of our climate, since there is no robust empirical correlation between GHG concentrations and global temperature or climate.

So AGW has nothing to do with a) more snow or b) less snow.

And, despite the past decade of slight cooling, there is no reason to fear “catastrophic cooling” in the future (although history has shown us that cooling would definitely be worse for humanity than a continuation of the long-term warming trend we have seen since 1850).

Arctic sea ice is continuing its seemingly interminable decline, and it looks like the loss could be contributing to the recent spate of cold winters over northern Europe and North America.
Researchers are still unsure about how important sea-ice loss is to winter weather. The fluctuating weather that Europe and the Americas have experienced since December last year is a reminder that many different factors are at play.

Jiping Liu at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta crunched data on ice and weather from the last three decades and found a link between the extent of Arctic sea ice and cold, snowy winters in the regions immediately to the south.

“The study adds weight to growing belief that Arctic sea ice is driving an increase of cold winters,” says Adam Scaife of the UK Met Office. His team has also found evidence to support such a link.

Is it real or just another computer-generated hobgoblin?

I’d guess it’s more the latter (especially since Met Office predicted “snowless winters” for the UK due to AGW a few years ago).

In the interests of accuracy I should point out that this was said by David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. He is not directly associated with the Met Office – but only by their joint work on the HADCRU datasets.

For those of you unfamiliar with the CRU, they got some not entirely favourable publicity during what became known as the Climategate affair. A selection of e-mails from and to the workers there came into the public domain, and did not paint a flattering picture of the integrity of their working methods. And if you need a tutorial in how not to run a professional IT shop, try the delightful ‘Harry_Read_Me’ file associated as well

the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

It is amazing how some “skeptics” can make the same facile arguments over and over without ever learning from their mistakes:

Most CAGW skeptics do NOT believe (as you write)

Manacker – how do you know what most “skeptics” believe w/r/t what was being argued? In point of fact, you don’t. But here’s what we do know: The “skeptics” we find here, and at places like WUWT represent a tiny fraction of “skeptics” overall. Folks who are actively engaged, such as you are, are outliers. Yet in an un-skeptical fashion, you insist on over and over – on the basis of what a relative handful of “skeptics” believe – extrapolate to pontificate about what “most ‘skeptics'” believe.

And in fact, even among the outlier group that you extrapolate from in a facile manner to characterize the larger group of “skeptics,” we often see crowing about unusual wintery weather – as if that refutes the theory of AGW.

But I will give you some credit. Unlike in the past, when you have un-scientifically and un-skeptically characterized the opinions of “skeptics” in a monolithic fashion – at least this time you used a qualifier. Even though you did so in support of a facile argument, progress is progress. I am impressed, and I have full confidence that given long enough, you may actually get to the point where you won’t make facile characterizations of “skeptics” beliefs.

Joshua wrote: “And in fact, even among the outlier group that you extrapolate from in a facile manner to characterize the larger group of “skeptics,” we often see crowing about unusual wintery weather – as if that refutes the theory of AGW.”
——————————————————————–
What about the very large group of alarmists who we very often see crowing about any unusual weather – as if it constitutes proof positive of AGW.

Latimer, you write “For all of you who obsess about ‘Arctic Ice Extent’,”

I have a nit to pick. I am obsessed with total sea ice extent; Arctic plus Antarctic. But I am not obsessed with Arctic sea ice extent. I think this total sea ice extent does tell us quite a lot about what is happening to global climate. The two different polar sea ice extent anomalies are negatively correlated, with a very high degree of certainty. And I have to ask myself why? The only explanation that I have seen that makes sense, is clouds.

Now, when the sun shines, the albedo of clouds is much higher than the albedo of the earth’s surface, just about everywhere, EXCEPT the Antarctic. Here the expanse of ice over the Antarctic continent has a higher albedo than clouds. So it is to be expected that if total cloud cover varies all over the world, it will affect the Arctic and Antarctic in opposite ways; just what we observe.

Why do SH clouds increase ice extent mostly in the areas where increased winds are driving the ice pack away from the shoreline, which creates open water, which freezes. RInse repeat. In some of the areas where winds are not regularly driving the ice pack out, your same clouds appear to be shrinking ice extent.

Dont expect Cripwell to read your evidence or if it reads it to understand it, or if he understands it to remember it, or if he reads understands and rememebers to admit it. There is no evidence that his intelligence is distinguishable from zero.

Latimer Alder,
All in all, I suppose no one should be surprised when no one puts up his hand when someone asks about racism at ClimateEtc. Posts at ClimateEtc on the North, and developing economies, remain condescending and ignore indigenous knowledge and experience; however I honestly do not believe that is the intention.

On the other hand, Latimer, your ignorant comments about pressures of climate change in the North continue to express blatant indifference to the point of the final frontier of racism, which hopefully we won’t have to put up with in future relations between nations.

Martha’s world view is determined by a confused, jumbled up version of Marxism. Everything is class based, now re-packaged as race/gender/sexual orientation. Any discussion that rejects the latest socialist cause du jour is by definition racist, or sexist, or LBGTist etc….

‘Since the record low achieved last year was widely heralded as a surefire indicator of the coming Thermocalypse, can we therefore assume that this return to normality is an equally surefire indicator of its postponement or cancellation?’

Dunno what question you thought you were answering, but it sure wasn’t that one.

Latimer Alder said “I have never been at all interested in Arctic Sea Ice extent and can’t see what all the fuss is about – one way or the other. Sea ice is nasty cold stuff and apart from a little chap called Pipaluk when I was a kid, I don’t give a stuff about polar bears. And I remember pictures of the subs at the North Pole when I was young – so it doesn’t bug me to know that the ice is thin or disappeared.or not. Which is why I prefaced my remarks with ‘For all of you who obsess about ‘Arctic Ice Extent’.
But I am very interested in doom;laden predictions of imminent Thermocalypse. It is sooooooo much fun pointing out when they don’t come true”.

My response in regard to this to was “Latimer Alder, All in all, I suppose no one should be surprised when no one puts up his hand when someone asks about racism at ClimateEtc. Posts at ClimateEtc on the North, and developing economies, remain condescending and ignore indigenous knowledge and experience; however I honestly do not believe that is the intention. On the other hand, Latimer, your ignorant comments about pressures of climate change in the North continue to express blatant indifference to the point of the final frontier of racism, which hopefully we won’t have to put up with in future relations between nations.”

The point is not ‘skepticism equals racism’ (Max).

Neither of you seem to have been brought up with historical or geographical knowledge and it shows, as evidenced in many of your comments that erase the existence of other societies, along with ecosystems. It is time for such punditry to be examined for its racism, separately from skepticis about climate change.

As I haven’t a formal wife I can’t tell you whether I have stopped beating her or not. I may not have eaten my 5 portions of vegetables today, nor
was I especially nice to an old chum who supports the football team that had the effrontery to beat my guys yesterday.

But in my defence, I took the dog for a walk and cleaned my teeth properly this morning. And was especially charming to the lady in the supermarket who took my money for a cut-price cabbage (no food wasted in my household!)

I think you’ll have to start smoking something a little stronger than is your normal habit before you are able to find any evidence that I have ‘erased the existence of other societies’ and I wish you luck in finding an audience for your ‘examination of such punditry’

I can assure you that it won’t be me, and I very much hope that no public body would be foolish enough to spend taxpayers hard-earned money on assisting you in such a pointless endeavour.

It’s stated to be NH data. It shows a stronger early 20thC warming and mid 20thC cooling than the more recent record, but it is common knowledge that these records get “corrected”, “variance adjusted” and “manipulated(?) ex post facto, so one should not be too surprised at this.

The green is specific volume. It would extend all the way to zero percent, I just highlighted the likely operating region. That is just the latent or fuel cycle at one atmosphere which would produce about 25 Joules per gram of dry air energy transfer. To be sustained, the inlet air would have to at least maintain that transfer rate. With enough fuel/air provided, the energy transfer could increase.

If it followed that path, a portion of the condensation would provide evaporative cooling of the inlet air and “enrich” the fuel air mixture, like a venturi creates a local lower pressure that would increase uptake of say, water vapor?

The fun part is the turbulent layer created by the roughness of the forest. There would be more laminar flow at the cloud base and more turbulent at the canopy. Yet another pressure differential.

Sitting amongst plenty, the Great Lakes that is, it is hard to imagine fresh water shortages. It only occurs to one that fresh water is a relative thing when one considers the Bedouin, the nomadic desert-dwelling Arabs who dress in black woolens to harbor sweat and husband water oasis resources. On the other hand, fresh water in Equatorial Africa means potable water. And for the Inuit peoples of the Arctic, fresh water is associated with energy to melt snow and ice.

The availability of fresh water then comes down to: how is fresh water obtained and to what purpose is the fresh water put? So, in a sense, Peter Gleick’s politicization of “fresh water” has some validity. After all, the Bedouin society developed codes of conduct surrounding the acquisition and defense of oasis. Fresh water to Equatorial Africa is fundamentally the lack of separation of potable water from sanitary facilities and the infrastructure and health care issues that emanate from that separation issue. The Inuit’s acquisition of fuel in a fuel starved region is also political.

Gleick saying that fresh water is “constrained” to me means that the political and the resources that go along with those reins of power are being controlled by someone else and are those whom Gleick wishes to control himself. His stab at acquiring those reins is through a moral tone and pulpit.

I travelled from Quetta in NW Pakistan across the desert to SE Iran in June 73 – four-day train ride, temps maybe reaching 125F. At a desert halt, intense sun, zero-ish humidity, strong wind, I realised for the first time why hot desert-dwellers rugged up in swathes of clothes – to retain moisture (and as insulation). Empirical evidence from direct observation, as the wind whipped moisture from my less-protected self. My brother got stuck at the border for two weeks in mid-67, whenever he drank life-saving tea, there’d be (by his estimate) 50 flies on the cup-rim seeking to share the precious fluid..

“The underlying net anthropogenic warming rate in the industrial era is found to have been steady since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs that included the early 20th century warming, the cooling of the 1960s and 1970s, the accelerated warming of the 1980s and 1990s, and the recent slowing of the warming rates. Quantitatively, the recurrent multidecadal internal variability, often underestimated in attribution studies, accounts for 40% of the observed recent 50-y warming trend.”

0.07C/decade is about right for continental warming. Ocean warming not so much. This should give an empirical sensitivity right around 1.1C, the no feedback sensitivity and this is the maximum possible effect over arid/frozen landscapes. Where there is water availble to evaporate it will be less. Sensitivity averaged over the entire globe should come in at less than 0.5C.

That’s not to say there isn’t more actual warming. That’s the CO2 component. There’s also soot (black carbon) and methane making contributions to warming which may in sum approach being equal in magnitude to CO2. CO2 is the most difficult of the three to reduce and it’s always been my position that if global warming is horrible (which it isn’t but if it was) then the sensible approach would be doing something about soot and methane which, mitigation dollar for mitigation dollar, are by far the most cost effective targets to reduce anthro warming.

Hey, at a recently estimated 2xCO2 ECS of 1.7C and a posited “equilibrium” time of several decades if not centuries, CO2 isn’t going to do us much good if “Mother Nature” decides to cool the place off (as the past decade’s record despite unabated CO2 emissions is beginning to indicate).

There’s only enough CO2 in all the optimistically estimated remaining fossil fuel reserves to offset about 2C cooling by “big Momma” – and she doesn’t have to wait centuries for a magic equilibrium.

“…and suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century. A recurrent multidecadal oscillation is found to extend to the preindustrial era in the 353-y Central England Temperature and is likely an internal variability related to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO),…”

This is an improvement, but they still have to admit some anthropogenic warming, which is not scientific. But we’re getting there.

(1) The atmosphere acts like a dam wall due to the gravity effect which pre-determines the thermal gradient, and Solar radiation which sets the level of the thermal plot in the troposphere. The height of the top of the dam represents the long-term “base” temperature of the surface, and the water level (temperature) would never have reached that level but for the dam. The “gravity effect” is what greenhouse advocates have overlooked.

(2) Sunshine in the daytime is like rain falling in the mountains in the catchment area.

(3) Creeks from the catchment area are like radiation transferring energy quickly to the dam waters and then over the edge of the dam wall.

(4) But two thirds of the water gets to the reservoir via slow underground seepage and thence over the wall, this representing evaporation, conduction (diffusion) and subsequent convection.

(5) Weather conditions, like clouds and high humidity, cause variations in how long it takes for the rain (Solar warming) of the day to flow over the wall of the dam. But weather is not world-wide climate.

(6) The dam is continually overflowing, but if excess water comes down in a storm, as in a hot spell (or a hot year like 2010) it just overflows more quickly, as in the cooler years 2011 and 2012.

(7) So the level of the top of the dam wall represents the base temperature, whilst extra water in the hills represents a temporary build up during the day, and also from day to day mostly in summer.

(8) Nothing is going to alter the height of the dam except long-term events, namely natural climate cycles, because it takes a huge amount of energy to raise the whole thermal plot which runs more or less continuously upwards from the tropopause to the Earth’s core.

And that’s how it is. And it works the same way on Venus and other planets.

“Supermarkets and electronics retailers say Argentina’s government has ordered them to stop advertising in the country’s top newspapers, in a bid to weaken independent media companies as President Cristina Kirchner turns to increasingly unorthodox policies to prevent inflation from derailing an ailing economy.”

I live in the US and feel sadness for the Australians due to the socialist government there. It seems we are in the same boat actually. I hope both counties can throw off the chains of socialism before both sink into the great toilette of history.

R, the cop on the beat has always, lately, been a willing coalition of functioning democracies. The US Navy was on its way to the Indonesian Tsunami within hours. The decision to send took seconds.
======================

Hey, lolwot, you just went into high gear thinking you know some climate science. I have to disabuse you of this delusion. First, you shoot off your mouth about the skepticalscience calculator and GISTEMP. That calculator is worthless and for your information, GISTEMP has changed their mind as of August 8th and are now showing a temperature curve that is in conformity with satellites from 1979 to 1997. Apparently someone there got cold feet after I exposed the fake warming of the eighties and nineties. It is they, not I who was wrong and they have admitted as much by changing their data. And like the Met Office, they also did it stealthily, without telling anyone. If it wasn’t for my method of determining the global mean temperature nobody would have noticed. Next, in order to avoid duplication I suggest that you read my post of Feb. 10th at 10:22 am. You are of course right about where I stand on warming. As far as I go there is not now and there never has been any greenhouse warming. I explained it briefly in that post and I will come back to it below. But this is separate from what those people say about no warming since 1997. That comes from the poor resolution of ground-based temperature curves that show the super El Nino collapsed and broadened out into a pancake. If you look at satellite data it is very sharply defined, very narrow, and on both sides of it are La Nina- like, but narrow valleys. The actual step warming that produced the twenty first century high really starts in 1999, after the last of these valleys, and reaches maximum by 2001. That is why I said I count 12, not 16 years for the present duration of the no-warming state but usually the super El Nino is counted as part of the warming. It did deliver the warm water needed for the twenty-first century high and I am not interested in nit picking with these people. There was no more warming after the maximum was reached and global temperature has been constant ever since. The original twenty-first century high lasted for seven years and was followed by the 2008 La Nina. That is the one that confounded Trenberth. It signified the resumption of ENSO oscillations that had been interrupted when an intervening La Nina got suppressed by warm water. It was followed by the 2010 El Nino and we are now in an irregular La Nina phase of ENSO. An El Nino is due within a year or so but because oceanic conditions can interfere it is very hard to predict. As to solar influence. I have looked for it but found none for recent years. If anything, it could bring us cooling, not warming. But early twentieth century could be different. That is because there was a steady warming then which started suddenly in 1910 and ended equally suddenly in 1940. There was no increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1910. This rules out greenhouse warming as its cause. Bjørn Lomborg thinks it might have a solar origin and I agree with him. It could be a late continuation of the warming that brought us out of the Little Ice Age. As to the temperature story of Lorne50, it is not in any of his three posts I found. Rest assured that I have the real temperature whenever there is a conflict. I have covered most of the temperature for the last century but the period from 1940 to 1976 remains to be discussed. !940 ushered in a severe cold wave that lasted through the Second World War. Its aftermath controlled the postwar years and there was no warming in the fifties, sixties, and seventies up to 1976. That is when a step warming associated with a phase change of the PDO raised global temperature, reportedly by 0.2 degrees Celsius. This completes our temperature survey by connecting it with the low end of the satellite record discussed above and elsewhere. It tells us that there has been no greenhouse warming whatsoever for the last 100 years. If you can prove otherwise, you are welcome to try, but I am not holding my breath. The question is why? Ferenc Miskolczi has the answer. As I explained in my previous comment, Miskolczi showed in 2010 that atmospheric absorption of long-wave radiation had been constant for the previous 61 years while atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent. This substantial amount of carbon dioxide did not increase the absorption of radiation by one whit. And without absorption of radiant energy greenhouse warming simply does not work. Which makes it that simple: greenhouse warming that is supposed to create AGW simply does not exist. If you have been inculcated into believing that Arrhenius proved otherwise, he only proved that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. It does that but thanks to water vapor in the atmosphere this effect is blocked. That is because water vapor feedback is negative, not positive as IPCC has been telling us. We already knew from the absence of the hot spot that water vapor feedback cannot be positive. Miskolczi theory requires that it must be negative and his observations using the NOAA database prove it.

“That is because there was a steady warming then which started suddenly in 1910 and ended equally suddenly in 1940″

Yes, the current slight cooling will also end around 2027 or 2028, followed by 30 years of warming which may not be apparent until after another minor minimum around 2034. But there will be 500 years of long term cooling starting soon after that.

Who are you saying claimed that? Certainly not me. That was predictable even back in the 1950’s, because the 59.6 year natural cycle declined for 29.8 years from 1939 and rose for 29.8 years from around 1969.. Now we can predict slight cooling until 2028.

“The problem for science communicators is that we, scientist and
non-scientist alike, do not respond blankly to uncertainty. We impose
meaning upon it. The greater the uncertainty the greater becomes the
influence of the perceptual filters in Figure 6.2. The different perspectives
summarized in Figure 6.3 have deep cosmological roots and are
not easily shifted. Perhaps the best that a science communicator can
hope for is that introspection might assist recognition of one’s own
biases, and an awareness of the inevitability of different biases in
others. Self-knowledge and an ability to stand metaphorically in the
shoes of others are key ingredients of the empathy essential to effective
communication.”

“When researchers Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer asked geoscientists and engineers their opinion about global warming, they discovered that two thirds of them think that the current warming is mostly due to nature.

They also found out that skeptics are scientifically informed and in positions of power and influence. What they didn’t figure out is why this is bleedingly obvious once you start with correct assumptions. Even though the skepticism of well respected scientists matches the skepticism of meteorologists (think about that) the researchers assume the skeptics are “deniers”.”

Almost all (perhaps all) such research starts with the premise that anyone not fully on board to CAGW is ignorant and pyschologically damaged. Hard to get sensible findings with that premise. Sociologist group-think?

More from Oz …
“Australian home-loan approvals fell in December for a third month and the proportion to first-home buyers slumped to an eight-and-a-half year low as central bank interest-rate cuts failed to lure buyers into the market ”

See! Climate change! There’s a widespread and well-founded lack of confidence in the competence and integrity of the government, measured unemployment is high and the fall in the workforce shows that it’s an under-estimate, house-prices have fallen and are static, construction costs are rising because of pro-union regulations … amazing that we aren’t all rushing out and buying new houses!

Vaughn fails to recognize sarcasm in “It’s amazing we aren’t all rushing out to buy houses.” This comedic relief unintentionally provided by Vaughn is one of the schticks used in “The Big Bang” sitcom where uber-nerd Sheldon is nearly incapable of recognizing sarcasm and is always asking his friends if something said was sarcasm then saying “drat” or “goodie” followed by a monthly tally of success like “I’m now 12 for 47 this month”.

Follies of socialist regulation.
Socialist planners seek ter reconcile us ter more and more
regulation, more and more taxation, by claiming that as long
as democracy retains final control, liberty of the individual
is upheld. Hmph! ‘Out, out, damned plot.’

I mildly corrected webby – to the effect that the difference between figures being quoted on crude oil was the inclusion in one of natural gas liquids and not in the other. Webby insisted that the difference was biofuels – which didn’t figure in either. A simple point and so began the usual song and dance of obfuscation and misdirection.

This seems to be a deliberate strategy – to sow confusion around the refusal to acknowledge simple error. Is there a deeper cause – other than the simple refusal to take responsibility and admit error? Something that is at any rate contemptible – but some additional layer of gamemanship or an idée fixe. Deliberate bad faith in the service of a cause or a preoccupation of mind held so firmly as to resist any attempt to modify it?

Regardless – there is something deeply disturbing about going around like some crazy carousel. Patiently quoting the science and showing the data only to be called a mad man for quoting Macbeth. No progress – no resolution – just being spat out the thread with your head spinning.

‘The equation you gave is really just a definition of net power flow. Energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval.’ Such obvious nonsense that it beggars belief.

‘You have also demonstrated where the delta is going, which is straight into the heat sink of the ocean. The ocean partially sinks the excess heat without raising the average radiating temperature, and thus creating a radiative imbalance with incoming solar. Part of the so-called “missing heat”.’

It changes of course – the ‘delta’ can be negative or positive. But the rest of it is just gobbledegook. The missing heat refers to the energy imbalance seen in CERES – which at that stage hadn’t been seen in the ocean. The OHC was always integrated to 700m. It wasn’t until Karina von Schuckmann integrated ARGO to 2000m that the earlier results were questioned. But the energy imbalance is still seen in CERES – in the shortwave. So I went through all the data – and quoted Macbeth – and for my trouble was simply called a mad man.

So we have utter nonsense and in the end nothing but idiotic insults. This seems the mode of operation of this person. No cogent reasoning, evidence of good faith or depth of scholarship. What is this insanity all about?

Latimer, you say that almost like you believe blog comments make some kind of difference. I might be persuaded that blog articles have some influence but not the comments. So have some fun if you want because it makes not a whit of difference.

When you’re one the grunts yourself it becomes self-deprecating and shows character in that you recognize and acknowledge your own impotence. I’m not making a difference here. Neither is anyone else. This is just killing time. If you think otherwise you’re delusional.

Latimer, you say that almost like you believe blog comments make some kind of difference. I might be persuaded that blog articles have some influence but not the comments. So have some fun if you want because it makes not a whit of difference.”

Google Scholar is supposedly a database of peer-reviewed scientific literature and patents. When Google Scholar starts to index Climate Etc comments in its database, alongside more appropriate documents such as Springer’s patents and publications, that is not a good thing. Yet, this random indexing is happening and as long as no one actually cites Climate Etc comments, the bad math that Ellison writes here will remain buried.

[HTML] Science is not about certainty
J Curry – judithcurry.com
… gas concentrations.””. Martin Clauss | May 31, 2012 at 12:28 am |. Lolwot, you are a
piece of work – as (if I recall correctly) , Chief Hydrologist once said, you are numb
nut . You love to take a statement made and twist it. I commented …
Related articles Cite

So with Google Scholar, one can now find all references to “numb nut” and “pissant progressive” alongside examples of bad dimensional analysis.

‘ I might be persuaded that blog articles have some influence but not the comments.’

It is my experience that whenever I go to a real life gettogether, there are quite a few ‘lurkers’ present who haven’t wished to comment publicly but who have read and understood all the comments. I’ve even seen estimates that the ratio of lurkers to posters is 10:1 or more

And as such the comments influence uncommitted people.

A polite and professional demeanour has a much greater persuasive effect than any amount of demagoguery.

‘Yes, it indeed looks like the chief invented his own set of units to describe S. It has the units of mass * length^2 / time.
Never ran into that one before, perhaps Chief’s space cadets have seen it in some alternate universe.’

By all means work out the units – it is absurdly simple. The wildly inaccurate characterisation from webby is quite astonishing.

It is one of a number of aberrations. CO2 emits photons at all frequecies but the one it was absorbed at. The carbon cycle consists of atmopheric and ocean stores. The oceans are warmed by the atmosphere by ‘effective diffusion’. ‘Energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval’. The global average wind speed is constant. etc etc. Webby invents curves with little factual basis and imagines they tell a coherent tale. He simplifies everything to a level a moron can understand – and then wonders why they don’t.

Springers latest aberration is to argue bombastically, with really quite tedious schoolgirl bully invective and at great length – while overlooking entirely the thermal inertia of oceans. Hard to miss that one. But there are many others I can’t be bothered reiterating. Big dave thinks he can beocme an expert on everyrhing with 10 minutes on the internet and a line in questionable reasoning. And then proceeds to instruct the great unwashed masses. When they don’t listen – it is time to throw a hissy fit. After all – you may as well entertain yourself with schoolgirl bully invective.

It seems an odd but a similar bombastic and facile style laced with unimaginative invective at the level of the schoolyard. Nothing that adds anything of substance, scholarship or deep reflection to topics under discussion.

numbnut – lolwots good twin from the planet bizarro. Or is it the other way round?

pissant progressive – you know them when you see one – they are about 5% of the population and definitiely peaked. If there were ever another Summer of Love declared the demographic could pick up. Latimer, Vaughan, Beth and Faustino might dust off their dancin’ shoes for some. Although as I remember it the wearing of shoes was optional – not to mention shirt, pants…

‘The inner-city elite: a fast-rising population, living within a 5km radius of the centre of all capital cities. This “hipster” community contains 1.3 million residents, about 5 per cent of the nation’s total and up 24 per cent across the past decade.

This segment includes the residents of Sydney’s Paddington, Melbourne’s Carlton and Brisbane’s New Farm. The inner-city elite tends to be better educated, more global, as in born overseas, and likelier to earn higher incomes than other tribes. They are less likely to be married with children and, based on the most recent federal election results, likelier to vote for the Greens or ALP. About half the nation’s inner-city elite lives in Sydney and Melbourne. You can tell if you live in a hipster household because there’s goat’s cheese in the fridge.’

The all abiding characteristic is hypocrisy. They use endearing terms such as idiot, petulant liar, fool, moron, hideously bloated and truculent denialist scumbag, mentally aberrant conservative son of a diseased camel, morally deficient lizard brain, scion of a toad and a slime mould, repugnant eater of children and defiler of mothers, Republican voter, a wart on the rump of the body politic, viewer of Faux News, disgusting purveyor of ideas picked up in the intellectual dung heaps of civilisation, soiler of underpants, bent over superannuated hag of obsolete ideologies, putrid despoiler of humanities past, present and future – and take great unbrage when I call them pissant progressives or space cadets. Go figure.

I think it is about questioning their innate moral and intellectual supperiority. Insolent serf – you dare to make fun of your lords and masters.

Peter Lang said “Your statement is true ONLY IF there is a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels”.

That assumes a great deal about the pricing of fossil fuels. Do you agree that all externalities should be included? Some externalities? Or no externalities, just accept what today’s market prices stand at?

Hey Kim, let’s put a price on human externalities and tax babies. If “hell is other people” then it will be a big tax indeed. We need a tax for all the war, disease, crime, poverty and corruption to come.

Comic vision I try ter cultivate in preference ter the dark side(.
which is so Erlich. Say, Max, you haven’t come up with any
humorous verse fer a while, it’s been all Kim with the jokes.
So when yerv got time…. gotta keep the show on the road.

A coterie of climate scientists … a clamour of controversy…
a confusion of forcings … a cloud of uncertainties …
a cornucopia of carbon ( w /out which where – would – we – be? )
Why, it’s in skeptic and troll … carbon ain’t fussy at all,
bloodstream, skeleton, nerve cell … of fish, mammal or fowl,
in all worlds’ animal, vegetable and even yr goddam min- er-al.

Environmentalism a becoming boondoggle … The most efficient, responsive and unsurpassingly democratic economy the world has ever known is being hamstrung and sucked up by a bureaucratic and professional ruling class of government gadflies. Vitality, influence and independence – all gone. Enter Al Gore playing Zorba the Bostonian: “I will make Chevies,” Zorba roars. “A Budweiser in every glasss,” Zorba babbles as he holds is arm aloft, his lips turning S’s in Z’s, “and, it’s time firefighters start businesses on the side with all the time off we give them — those fat government pensions don’t just grown on trees ‘ya know — behind every government worker there’s a greedy union that must be fed.”

Zorba consoles the English writer — the day after his conquest of the village widow — who subsequently is ritually sacrificed to the gods by superstitious villagers in an attempt to get nature to conform to their models of reality.

“Nevertheless,” Zorba explains, “you can’t blame the villagers… they’re all just being human and looking at things in a human-kind of way. It is for them a moral issue this climate change stuff and they’ve been told the facts are beyond question – gobal warming is real and bad and will kill us all and every living thing. That and the government funding is all the villagers need to know to motivate them to hurt and murder the poor, if they must and they unquestionably must, being on the side of the angels and all.”

As opposed to drawing a long bow and seeing a tea party conspircay? The tea party makes a lot more sense than an America unable to reconcile spending and taxation or control a multi-trillion dollar debt for another generation – while the population votes for bread and circuses appluaded from the sidelines by pissant progressives.

Apparently, chief – Judith sees some distinction of some significance between your plethora of name-calling comments and my occasional comment ridiculing you. I would continue if that weren’t the case, but she’s wielding her hammer, and apparently I’m the nail she sees.

It you would just for once not act like a dog with a bone you might be a reasonable human being.

I mean like science, poetry or humour. Anything but the obsessive defence of pissant progressivism. It defines a demographic and can’t be as bad as denialist scumbag or any of the other sobriquets that slip from the mouths of the not so innocent. Do you identify with the demographic? You with your passive/aggressive pop psychology – lacking self awareness, unconscious irony, twisted and obsessive running-dog capitialist, etc. You object to my politics? So what? If you think it concerns me for a moment – you are utterly mad.

Let it go. Take a deep breath. Try something with a bit of style. Anything at all but the empty jibe, the drive-by snark, the smarmy interjection. Anything but the non stop whining about how unfair it all is.

Good point. It’s a great political move. I mean clearly, by having “Muslim sympathies,” he’s capitalizing on support from those who support terrorism, right?

While the broad makeup of religious preferences did not drastically change, there were shifts in support for Obama since 2008. His share of the vote increased among four religious groups identified in exit polling data: Hispanic Catholics (from 72 percent to 75 percent), black Protestants (from 94 percent to 95 percent), non-Protestant black Christians (from 94 percent to 95 percent), and those affiliated with Islam and “other faiths” (from 73 percent to 74 percent).

I mean look at that – he increased his votes by one whole percent with the Muzlums. Kim’s fears are vindicated!!!!11!111!!!1

BTW – looking at the data, it is becoming clear that it is wrong, as many people have been saying, that the Republican party is trending positively only with white voters. In fact, while it is a little hard to say with total confidence (the data don’t break out specifically enough to be sure), it looks like they are basically only trending positively among white evangelicals!

Actually – an error in my last post. Obama trended down among Jews (by @9%), which means that more than likely, he trended up by more than 1% among kim’s Muzlums and other religious groups that fall into the “affiliated with Islam and “other faiths” category.”

They find problems with Beentocks model, and conclude :
An appropriate analysis of this data would require separate models for the pre and post ice-core measurements, taking account of the myriad inﬂuences impinging on the climate and temperature, its composition and distribution, as well as all the important 5 sinks and sources. The aim of this brief note is merely to demonstrate that the conclusions claimed by Beenstock et al. (2012) about the diﬀerent degrees of integrability of temperature and CO2 are rejected once the regime-shift nature of the measurement system is taken into account. Indeed, a simple bivariate plot of temperature and log(CO2ML) over the second period, matched by means and ranges, suggests the obvious: they are closely related. Such results match the most recent ﬁndings on Global
Temperature from NASA: see http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/

Thirty year means for 15 inland tropical cities (latitude 16 to 24 deg.S on three continents) when Sun is at its Zenith, with data for altitudes (ranging 0 to 1200m) adjusted to 600m assuming lapse rates 7, 7.5 and 8C/Km for the groups of 5 cities in the wet, medium and dry thirds gave these results for mean daily minimum and maximum temperatures …

Full details of this study will be published in an Appendix to “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” soon to appear on the Principia Scientific International site, initially in the PROM (Peer Review in Open Media) menu and subsequently in the Publications Menu.

The expanded paper (with the above title) will replace the current one which only relates to surface temperatures.

The revised and expanded paper will provide a detailed explanation of the mechanism of “heat creep” and also comprehensive counter arguments to all known attempted rebuttals of the concept of the autonomously evolved thermodynamic equilibrium state of maximum entropy which is shown to be isentropic in a gravitational field, this being a corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If you have comments to make thereon, please note that, when the paper appears on the PROM menu, a new public thread will be opened for such comments in the PSI forum.

President Obama called on Congress to put in place a market-based mechanism to deal with carbon emissions.

That means President Obama is calling for a price on carbon. Just like we have here in Australia thanks to this Labor Government.

From our experience, we know it won’t be easy and that the President will meet tough opposition.

For years climate sceptics have argued the United States is not acting, so nor should Australia. Can you share this video and show them that’s not true?

The President also pointed out that China is going full steam ahead on moving to renewable energy sources and the United States has to do the same.

These shifts on the international stage make it more important than ever that Australia continues to act on climate change. We must not go backwards.

You can check out some handy facts on China’s action on climate change by clicking here.

Greg

PS. Can you help us defend the carbon price from Tony Abbott by chipping in $10? We can’t afford to fall behind the rest of the world on this issue.

Obama said next to nothing about this in his re-election campaign, but now that he’s in power, he dumps this on the US people. It makes me wonder who can we trust. The Australian Prime Ministers mislead us and trick us, and the US President does the same. It seems the ideological Left have no ethics, no moral values, no integrity.

Thank you for your email and for linking to Obama’s speech about emissions pricing to combat climate change.

However, there are major issues he has not addressed, that really do need to be addressed before the world embarks on pricing carbon.

What I would most like to hear from you is your honest opinion about the probability that a legally binding international agreement (Treaty, Protocol, whatever) can be agreed, implemented, maintained (ramped up across all 195 countries in unison) for 100 years or until greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to a sustainable level? What is your honest opinion on the probability of that occurring?

I am also interested to know how much difference such a treaty would make to the climate?

The assumptions [that underpin the economic analyses that justify carbon pricing] are academic but they are totally impracticable to achieve in the real world. Here are some of the assumptions (in my words):

• Negligible leakage (of emissions between countries)

• All emission sources are included (all countries and all emissions in each country)

• Negligible compliance cost

• Negligible fraud

• An optimal carbon price

• The whole world implements the optimal carbon price in unison

• The whole world acts in unison to increase the optimal carbon price periodically

• The whole world continues to maintain the carbon price at the optimal level for all of this century (and thereafter).

Moreover, the results here incorporate an estimate of the importance of participation for economic efficiency. Complete participation is important because the cost function for abatement appears to be highly convex. We preliminarily estimate that a participation rate of 50 percent instead of 100 percent will impose a cost penalty on abatement of 250 percent.

In other words, if only 50% of emissions are captured in the carbon pricing scheme, the cost penalty for the participants would be 250%. The 50% participation could be achieved by, for example, 100% of countries participating in the scheme but only 50% of the emissions in total from within the countries are caught, or 50% of countries participate and 100% of the emissions within those countries are caught in the scheme (i.e. taxed or traded).

Given the above, we can see that the assumptions are theoretical and impracticable in the real world. To recognize this point, try to envisage how we could capture 100% of emissions from 100% of emitters in Australia (every cow, sheep, goat) in the CO2 pricing scheme, let alone expecting the same to be done across the whole world; e.g. China, India, Eretria, Ethiopia, Mogadishu and Somalia.

Therefore, we should be asking: what will be the cost of complying with the requirements when they are fully implemented to the standard that will eventually be required?

A blackbody absorbs all radiation perfectly and emits all radiation perfectly
and conduct the energy absorbed [converted into heat] perfectly [heat is instantaneously transferred to any spot on the surface.

So if had a blackbody sphere and one side facing the sun, the heat created is conducted the night side of the sphere immediately.
And if had sunlight at 1363 watts per square meter. One divides by four
to get energy emitted. Which would be 340.75 watts per square meter over entire surface of sphere.
Or if area of diameter of sphere and imagined it was disk, each square meter of the disk facing the sunlight would absorb 1363 joules and conduct
3/4 of this heat to other areas not being heated and sunlight square meter would emit 1/4 as radiation. So on imagined disk a square would absorb 1363 watts and emit 340.75 watts while conducting instantaneously 1022.25 joules of heat elsewhere and would radiated at this heated locations. Giving uniform emission over entire sphere of 340.75 watts per square meter.

So an earth size blackbody sphere has radius of about 6378 km and
disk area of 6378 squared times pi. Which is 127,796,375 square km.
Which is about 1.28 x 10^14 square meters. Times 1363 watts per square
meter is about 1.74 x10^17 watts of sunlight.
So this size blackbody sphere is absorbing 1.74 x10^17 watts of sunlight
and emitting 1.74 x10^17 watts of electromagnetic radiation each second.

Now a question is, what happens if the sunlight stops shining on the blackbody sphere. In other words one second it’s absorbing and emitting
1.74 x10^17 watts of energy. And in next second the sun stops shining on it. How much energy is blackbody sphere emitting in the second and third second after the sun stops shining?

The correct answer is there is no answer.
Though one justify the blackbody has zero heat capacity [as this value has been zeroed out] and in that case in second and subsequent seconds, the blackbody would emit the background radiation of the universe, or it would have temperature of about 2 K and emitted some fraction of a microwatt
per square meter.
One should understand that this beastie known as ideal black body is weird creature. it’s sphere but it’s really missing a dimension or two.
One could imagine it’s hollow or filled other ideal black body- it could be either. It would make more practical sense if it was hollow- it could help “explain” the instantaneous transfer of energy [Sort of. you could imagine the perfect absorber and emitter of electromagnetic radiation is emitting energy into the interior of sphere- but it doesn’t really work out].
Rather than hollow you put magical gas in the middle of sphere. Though
perhaps better would be trapped photons.

But instead of that, you could simply fill the sphere with water. Water has LOTS of heat capacity.
So if it’s filled with water, how long does emit energy after the sun is no longer shining?
Let’s make easier by asking how many energy would be needed to raise
or lower temperature by 1 K.
So volume of sphere is: (4/3) pi radius cubed.
6378 km cubed times pi times 4 divide by 3 is 1.08 x 10^12 cubic km.
Cubic km of water is 1 billion tonnes. Or 1 x10^12 kg. So we have
1.08 x 10^24 kg. And at 5 C has 4204 joules per kg.
4.5 x 10^27 joules to change by 1 K.
And emitting 1.74 x10^17 watts of energy. And suppose to be 5.3 C
So 2.6 x 10^10 seconds.
With a year having 3.1 x 10^7 seconds.
So around a thousand years to lower by 1 K.

Now, since got on subject of water.
“Both ice and water are surprisingly good thermal radiators and for practical purposes can be considered as almost perfect black bodies. The graph below illustrates the fact that the emissivity of water and ice in the commonly used 3-5µm and 9-12 µm bands are very similar (within a range of 0.05). ”https://www.comp.glam.ac.uk/pages/staff/pplassma/MedImaging/PROJECTS/IR/CAMTEST/Icewater.htm
So what about absorption of sunlight?
If the sun is near zenith one could assume water absorbs sunlight quite
well- approaching an ideal blackbody.
But an earth size sphere, it isn’t actually a flat disk.
On the sun lit side of the sphere’s hemisphere one could consider a small portion of the hemisphere is like a flat disk. So roughly 10,000 km diameter disk is sort of flatish. But that area is only 78.5 million square km. As compared to imagining earth disk of 127.7 million square km.
So 78.5 million square km is sort of like a disk, but 49.5 square km of it is more bent.
There many things to consider, but it’s late and got go to sleep.
Bye.

Continuing and going to return to idea of ideal blackbody spherical shell which has interior filled with water- and requiring “around a thousand years to lower by 1 K”.
So given enough time the water inside gets to same temperature as the skin temperature of an ideal blackbody at earth distance: 5.3 C.
When you have the water the same temperature as skin of ideal blackbody spherical shell, there is no need for sun lit part of sphere to send 3/4 of energy to cooler parts of the sphere- water’s heat capacity will keep within 1 K for thousand years- and we dealing 24 hour cycle. Which is 1/365,000th of that time period.

So say you have a rule, if anywhere on the sphere it lower by .3 C, you ship some power to it conduct heat to location. And one should not “have to” ship much energy to it, because it won’t lower by .3 C- not in less then 24 hours. Now in polar regions during winter you might need to ship some power- you have 6 months of night. A polar region [arctic circle] is about 6% of surface area- so that 510 times .06- 30.6 million.
And imagined disk is 127.7 million square km and 30.6 million 25% of this.

So let’s say the area in sunlight “keeps” 75% of it’s energy and ships 25%.

So instead of only 340.75 watts used locally, 340.75 watts is “shipped” globally to warm any area which gets from 5.3 C to 5 C.
And 1022.25 watts will used more local, so 75% of disk energy warms
the sun lit hemisphere, which is somewhere 511 watts per square meter.
So half the planet surface is about 30 C and other half is 5.3 C.
So with all the sun energy it takes 1000 years to warm all the water by 1 K.
So it could take around 5000 years with smaller portion of sunlight’s energy
to warm all water by 1 K.
So within 10,000 year period one could have interior water 6 C and if anyplace cools to 5 C
heat is conducted to it, and half the planet 30 C at any time.
So day time high of 30 and night time not getting below 5 C. So gives average global temperature of about 17 C or more.

And let change it again instead of heating half the world you heat up 40% of the world- the tropics, and million year of such heating get world more similar to earth but with even higher average temperature.

But we don’t have such an ideal blackbody material.
Instead we water which works like a blackbody but sunlight needs to be a fairly high above horizon to act like a blackbody.
At low angle above horizon water reflect significant portion of the incoming solar energy.
[We aren’t yet including an atmosphere- and ignoring evaporation and clouds, etc]
A blackbody is such wonderful material that angle of the sun makes no difference- it absorbs as one imagines it’s hitting perpendicular to flat disk.

But can water in some respects be better than blackbody. Could water cheat the rules?
What if blackbody could store energy beneath the surface so it doesn’t need to radiate as much energy?
If all heating done at surface it radiates a higher amount of energy.

Because water is transparent sunlight can pass thru the surface. So if have swimming pool with dark color bottom a lot of the sunlight’s energy could heat the bottom part of the pool.
Now, the warmed water would rise to the surface- and it would not take very long for water convect this heat in a swimming pool- minutes or hours.
BUT with lower the temperature difference one gets a slower the convection of heat. So the heat transport would be quicker if a cooler pool than compared to uniformly warmer pool.

With the ocean, sunlight can penetrate to 100 meters under the surface
Though at 100 meter depth very little energy gets to this level.
Much energy of sunlight is absorbed in the top 10 meter of the ocean. And in tropics between 1 and 100 meters one has fairly uniform temperature and a large percentage sunlight is absorbed:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocline#Oceans

Questions and review.
The ocean acts like greenhouse are sometimes wrongly thought to operate: Shortwave radiation passes thru the water and the energy is absorbed and the water below the surface is unable to emit longwave IR.
Shortwave including Near IR is transparent with to the blackbody temperature radiation of the water [IR] being opaque
The difference over the 100 meters of tropical water depth is slight- around 3 C over 100 meter [.03 C per meter].
[Note there are winds and wave action playing a role in mixing this water though to some extent ocean acts exactly like solar pond [lower salinity at surface]. The mechanical mixing of ocean would disrupt this “solar pond effect” by mixing the ocean salinity, but whether or not one difference levels of salinity the uniformity of temperature inhibits convection of heat to the surface [similar in function to the “solar pond effect”] ]
One could say with ideal blackbody the general impression one can get is it’s about just the surface- it’s 2 dimensional whereas the ocean acting in comparison an ideal blackbody has important aspect of depth- it’s 3 dimensional.
A shortcoming of an ocean as compared to a ideal blackbody is the ocean is very reflective at low incidence of sunlight.
Question: when one has reflective material there relationship to it’s emissivity- higher reflectivity corresponds with lower emissivity. Does this apply with water? At low angle does it somehow have a lower emissivity?
In other words a flat surface will radiate at 180 degree angle- so in terms reflectivity of water, it begins to become significant at lower than 30 degrees. So in total you have 60 degrees of the 180 degrees [a 3rd of the entire arc] with higher [ever increasing reflectivity. Does the higher reflectivity correspond to lower emissivity*.
[* Actually, rather than arc it’s conical]
It not particularly significant as the amount sunlight per square meter
when sunlight is low angle to the surface is somewhat insignificant- in terms of absorbing solar energy. But if true, the emission of water would not be as near a ideal blackbody emission, but significantly less.
In other words with sun near zenith nearly all the sunlight is absorbed by the water, but 60 degrees of the 180 degrees doesn’t radiate close to ideal blackbody. Water would work better than ideal blackbody in addition to 3rd dimensional aspect of water.

So Earth is 70% ocean with higher percentage of ocean in the tropics, and tropics is where most the sunlight is absorbed. Tropics is 40% of Earth surface area. Oceans in general and tropics in term first 100 meter of water store enormous amount energy. Or the top 100 meters of tropical ocean plays significant or dominating role in global climate but this is small portion of the entire ocean and the entire ocean is the “true” average global temperature.
Now, from engineering or planning point of view how much ocean is enough. Or even though oceans control our global heat budget- the ocean is the banker of money/energy- does or can land play a role in increasing global atmospheric temperature. Is there diminishing return- could have too much ocean. What right amount of ocean for highest global temperature. And if care too much about what kind of surface it is, and simply measure 1 mile below land and ocean- land is warmer. Ocean absorb the energy of the Sun, but in terms volumes of land and volumes of ocean [cubic km], land is warmer. Or a continental land mass may not be add much energy to planetary heat budget, but it is warmer than an ocean.
Or our ocean are capable [and have in the past] of absorbing far more energy than the current level of energy they store- land has not so much potential to hold more energy. And land is largely a repository of geothermal energy. Or the ocean warming mechanism but it is also the planetary cold closet [and when involving evaporation, also a swamp cooler].

Adding an atmosphere.
If start from ideal blackbody and you add non-greenhouse gases
what will the air temperature be.
On Earth air temperature tends to be cooler than land surface skin temperatures. With ocean skin temperature being quite close to the air temperature.
But if had uniform temperature of 5.3 C, with no night and day temperature difference, nor seasonal temperature difference, would the surface air eventually warm near to 5.3 C?

Oh, wait. Let’s back up a bit, if you had 1 atm of non-greenhouse gases, such as Oxygen and nitrogen, they block some the sunlight reaching the surface- it reflect some sunlight and it would diffuse and scatter the sunlight [preventing some of the sunlight from every reaching the ideal blackbody surface.
So TOA we are receiving 1366 watts per square meter, but when sun is at zenith with 1 atm of nitrogen we would not receive 1366 watts per square at the surface.
Our atmosphere with sun at zenith clear day prevent about 25% of the direct sunlight from reaching the surface. A significant part of this is due to greenhouse gases [mostly H2O], but probably around half is prevented from reaching the surface by the non-greenhouse gases.
So instead of 1363 watts divided by 4, it could be “somewhere” around 1200 watts divided by 4 [at best]. So this could lower uniform temperature by somewhere around 10 K.
One could ask if non-greenhouse would affect how much sunlight gets in could effect how much IR gets out. But such question could annoy some people.
Let’s move on.
Let’s add some water. Say have a perfect sphere. And add 1 meter of water to surface and covers entire surface.
The water like the non-greenhouse atmosphere is transparent, and 1 meter of water would also block sunlight from reaching the ideal blackbody surface. And with some water added, we get some H20 greenhouse gas.
So we went from 1363 watts with no atmosphere, then atmosphere without greenhouse gas knocks down less 1200 watts and addition of 1 meter deep water will make less than 1000 watts per square reach the blackbody surface.
And 1000 divided by 4 is 250 watts per square meter or less than -13 C but call it a -13 C uniform temperature.
Which if true gives us water ice instead of liquid water.
Now if we using an ideal blackbody, it doesn’t matter if the planet is rotating [no one has ever given any quantity which added or subtracted from rotation and so it should matter if we choose not have it rotate much- say the day is 1000 hrs rather than 24 hrs.

Now with frozen water, there is not going to be much H2O greenhouse gas in the atmosphere- so there is little in terms of clouds.

So the 1000 hour day starts with -13 C ice and -13 C surface air with ideal blackbody at -13 C. And on sun lit side when sun is near zenith there will be 1000 watts per square meter shining on this part of planet.

Now, if you want to cool something off, a practical way to be this is throw water on- it sucks up heat and cools by evaporation. So if you had a hot frying pan, you could wait for it cool down by radiating the heat, or you pour a bunch water in the frying pan and cool it quicker.
So one could imagine the blackbody on the night side needing all kinds of energy to keep it’s temperature at -13 C. But for water to cool something the water needs to be cooler, if the same temperature it doesn’t cool quickly. So what happening on night side is the infrared radiation made by the ideal blackbody can’t radiate thru the 1 meter of water.
Now the question is what is wanted, the blackbody temperature at -13 C or the surface of the ice to be -13 C. Because the surface of ice will cool down at night, but to prevent the ice from dropping below -13 C you going have to heat the ice up, turn some into water and thru conduction
and convection heat the surface ice to -13 C.

It seems, we want an even distribution of radiation and the water will mostly block IR radiation, so what will radiating most of the IR will skin surface of the ice.
So the skin surface of ice will be around -13 C and will be heat gradient
which has enough temperature difference so as to make the skin surface -13 C.
Hmm the “average Arctic winter temperature is -30° F (-34°C)”http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/polar/weather_arctic.html
So it seems that in say 4 months of winter one has colder temperatures and less than 1 meter of ice is form. 4 months being 2880 hours.
So it seems the blackbody would need to warm the H20 so part of it is liquid with the surface being the -13 C ice

Let’s go on the sun lit side you frozen ice with some portion of the 1 meter of H20 starting has liquid. Most of the energy is going to the ideal blackbody but some is heating the top of the ice.
Now, another thing the ice in the sunlight would be doing is evaporating, but cold air can’t hold much water vapor. So it’s evaporating and then condensing on the cool surface. So being changed into gas, condensing as liquid on the surface of the ice, and re-forms into ice as long the surface is cold than 0 C.

Let’s pick a number, say 50 watts per square meter is being converted into heat [including evaporation. So in an hour, 3600 times 50 is
180,000 joules per square meter.
And mm depth of square meter is 1000 cubic cm or 1 kg of water.
And water at .01 C is 4.21 kJ/kgK
And ice is at -10 C is 2.0 kJ/kgK
To raise a mm thickness of square meter by 13 K requires about
26,000 joules. And melting it require 334,000 joules.
So it requires 2 hours of sunlight added 50 joules a second to melt 1 mm ice which was at -13 C.
Or 100 hours melts 50 mm [5 cm].
So it’s in the ballpark of the day hours [500 hrs] melting around 1 foot or so of ice. Which would re- freeze at night.
But while it’s refreezing, the sunlight side doesn’t need provide any energy- it only adds energy to keep surface at at least -13 C warm.

So it seems with ideal blackbody and 1 meter of water and atmosphere
one does get -13 C or cooler.
And it’s quite possible uniform surface temperature could instead be closer to 0 C [or higher].
With water at 1 C [and air temperature at 1 C] air is still unable to have many clouds.
Now the advantage of ideal blackbody is conveniently makes a uniform global temperature. But greater water depth should allow water to absorb more energy- so more water makes warmer uniform temperature. In other words if ideal blackbody absorbed say half of 1000 watts per square meter and water absorbed the other half of energy, you get a higher uniform temperature as compared to water only absorbing 50 watts per square meter.
But of course once the water and air warm up, you would get more clouds.

Clouds should be next.
But clouds are complicated.
And our world is not a perfect sphere nor do have any ideal blackbody material. Nor should imagine that a planet is warmed as though it were
disk instead of a hemisphere, AND imagine this is very precise.

I think it is reasonable that if planetary size [or any size sphere] were
covered with ideal blackbody that it’s uniform temperature would
be [if at Earth distance] around 5 C. But because we don’t actually have any ideal blackbody, I think it’s a little excessive to claim it has uniform temperature of 5.3 C.
I think it’s quite possible to have a higher uniform temperature than
5 C. And I don’t greenhouse gases are a way to significantly cause an ideal
blackbody to be warmer than 5 C.
Said differently I believe there are ways of storing heat [or energy in some form] but I don’t think greenhouse gases do this very well.

So, let’s start from the obvious, CO2 is not a potent greenhouse gas. And no is claiming it is. Methane is said to be far more potent. H20 gas is said to to be more potent. And there things called super greenhouse gases.
“The capacity of methane to trap heat is 20 times more than that of carbon dioxide.”
“Averaged over a century, the impact of nitrous oxide per unit weight is 298 times more than that of carbon dioxide.”
“The irregular patter of ozone concentration across the globe, makes it difficult for us to determine the potential of this gas, but it’s assumed that the radiative forcing of ozone present in troposphere is approximately 25 percent more than that of carbon dioxide.”
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/greenhouse-gases-list.html

“These gases, which include SF6 and CF3SF5 ,1,2 absorb infrared radiation strongly in regions where CO2, CH4 and H2O do not absorb.

Properties of greenhouse gases

In qualitative terms, there are two properties that are necessary for a molecule to be an effective greenhouse gas.

” The molecule must absorb infrared radiation strongly in the black-body range of the Earth’s emission, ca 5-25 µm, where CO2, CH4 etc do not absorb. In practice, many C-F and C-Cl stretching vibrations around 10 µm contribute strongly. Such transitions are only observed if the vibration causes a change in dipole moment of the molecule. Figure 2 shows the calculated infrared absorption spectrum of CF3SF5. The molecule has 24 vibrational modes, but only six have any significant infrared intensity. The four most intense bands occur in the atmospheric window 8-14 µm…”http://www.rsc.org/Education/EiC/issues/2008Jan/CF3SF5SuperGreenhouseGas.asp

So my point is there is better greenhouse gas than CO2 and/or H20.

So start with ideal blackbody and add large quantities of these super greenhouse gases, plus methane and include CO2. But no H20.
Whatever you think would be the best in terms of heating earth, and if like start with 20% of 1 atm of CO2- or 200,000 ppm and whatever cocktail greenhouse gases to it.
[I tend to think the CO2 is quite good as compared to N2 or O2 in terms of being transparent [CO2 is more transparent to to electromagnetic
radiation from the Sun- than both or either N2 or O2- so that aspect of CO2 could make Earth hotter.]
And with brew of greenhouse gas and having have same mass of Earth atmosphere [1 atm], I don’t think one can increase the uniform temperature of ideal blackbody by more than 20 C.
So starts with 5 C and goes to a 25 C uniform global temperature.
Now a 25 C uniform global temperature is NOT a Venus like inferno- it’s
actually a bit cool- or a comfortable room temperature.
The highest *average* ever on Earth:
“”Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960-Dec. 1966), 94 °F (35 °C). (US): Key West, Fla. (30-year normal), 78.2 °F (25.7 °C).””http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MichaelLevin.shtml
And Key West is hardly hell.

So greenhouse theory suggests that greenhouse gases add 33 C
to blackbody temperature. And I am saying greenhouse gases can not add 20 C to a uniform temperature of 5 C.
Now, a uniform temperature of 25 C is different than an average temperature of 25 C. But I am talking only about about an ideal blackbody and greenhouse gases added, and an ideal blackbody causes there to be uniform temperature- that the *purpose* of the imaginary creature called the ideal blackbody.
I am less sure about greenhouse gases increasing the average global temperature by 20 C- that is different topic.
So you an ideal blackbody with greenhouse gases as atmosphere,
how does increase the uniform temperature by 1 C?
Keep in mind we have no idea how a ideal blackbody is actually made- it *could* be made of strange exotic mixture of super greenhouse gases in some strange quantum mechanical matrix. It’s what it does- absorbs all electromagnetic energy and converts all to heat and conducts the heat at very fast speed, and emitted electromagnetic energy at it’s temperature [blackbody temperature].
[[If I had to make such a thing I would start with the idea of perhaps using some kind gas or gases- because gases might be able to transport heat quickly. Gases or some kind of plasmas, maybe.]]

But it’s simple to say, it appears to be beyond your technology capability at the moment.

So an ideal blackbody takes watts of the sunlight variety and make them into the same amount watts into longer wavelength. It doesn’t create or store energy. It does not actually need to be warm or cold, though it radiates as though it were a certain temperature.
As technicality, ideal blackbody is “designed” to absorb sunlight- not the wavelength it emits, but we will assume it absorb any kind and any quantity of any kind of wavelength.
Now what could the greenhouse gas do. There two schools of thought as far as I can tell. One is the greenhouse gases slows radiant energy from leaving a planet. And other school say it adds energy to surface- it heats the surface. The surface could mean the skin surface or vaguely anywhere in the atmosphere [which isn’t really strictly speaking a surface, but terms like surface air -which means air related or near to the planet surface- but we don’t care, call anything a surface].
So, it warms something.
Or another way it’s described or what could said to be the upshot of it all is that the greenhouse gases lowers the emissivity of the surface.

This last part is sort of interesting. If we imagine a blackbody that can perfectly absorb and emit radiation. There is nothing stopping one from imagining some body that perfectly absorbs but poorly emit radiation.
Some might say that’s water- no, not really. You could describe it that way, but I wouldn’t.
Now let’s call it ideal purple dotted body- something which absorb all the energy of sunlight, but emit at say, .5.
So it absorbs 1000 watts and it emits 500 watts. Now that’s not too strange, but it has to store the energy. What else could it do?
It’s going accumulate energy.
So this thermal solar panel. If it absorb 1000 watts and emits 400 watts, it’s 60 percent efficient. Green plants store chemical energy. PV panel
make electricity. So energy stored as thermal heat, chemical energy [gasoline and oxygen in atmosphere], and electricity which isn’t stored but is used. One can pump water up a hill- storing energy of gravity.
You could compress air in a tank. Batteries are chemical energy which makes electricity. You could store static charge [capacitors]. You could make anti-matter. Probably missing a few, but anyhow there are ways to store energy. But there is no way to store limitless amounts of energy- you need some kind of container- antimatter may be a lot of energy and it may fit in small container- but needs some finite container.

See where this is going?
If you have imbalance of energy you need some kind of container to store the energy. If regarding heat, that going to involve heat capacity.

Oh, one thing I forget, the atmosphere stores energy. It stores the kinetic energy of molecules. Oh and latent heat. I knew I missing some of them.
So atmosphere is sort of like compressed air, but it’s a big container [and somewhat limitless] and is different. The atmosphere is stores gravity energy, and translational motion of molecules and is relatively low pressure- a 14.7 psi pressure tank isn’t much energy.
Anyhow, humans [as far as I recall] don’t store energy in something like an atmosphere nor do we store energy using latent heat- that is Mother Nature’s thing.

Getting back to the ideal blackbody, it doesn’t store heat. It’s not in the design- there is no specs for it.
We do have the greenhouse gases and they can store heat, like any other non-greenhouse gas can do. The faster they move around the more energy they store.

Now greenhouse gases are like trap light in a jar. It’s about photons.
So if greenhouse gas delay photon from leaving earth, the atmosphere is like a jar holding photons.
Now, the “value” of storing energy involves time it is stored. One could pump water up a hill and immediately draw down the hill, instead putting in container. And the amount of time it store the energy is how fast the water move up the hill, the distance up the hill and speed and distance going down the hill. This stores the energy for couple minutes or whatever. This could be useful- you could pump water up a hill and have go to a different location where make electrical power. But other than that it’s fairly useless way to “store” energy- but it doesn’t need a container [unless count the pipes that send the water as a container- you don’t need a reservoir].
So pumping water up and having go down the hill is storing energy for some short time period and in sense not limited by size of reservoir-
and it’s similar to idea of delaying the radiant energy from leaving the planet. One difference is photons travel at speed of light- and go essentially in random directions.

Now above I allowed that ideal blackbody can absorb any type or quantity of radiation. But there some mysteries connected with this.
The ideal blackbody is something that transforms electromagnetic energy- and if has it energy it made come back to it, what is it suppose to do with it- does change that wavelength into some other wavelength or does send it back with no changes?
Another loose end, is I said an ideal blackbody doesn’t need to be a certain temperature, all needs to do radiate like it was a certain temperature. Now, perfectly fine to say it is at the temperature it is radiating at. Bring up the issue cause trying figure out how the gases warm up. Now molecule of gas hit a surface, and imparts it’s velocity and gives velocity from surface- you could say it’s taking heat from surface and returning heat to surface. Generally if same temperature, we don’t
think heat is being exchanged.
So why would blackbody behave different “exchanging” the same same heat with gas molecules hitting every nanosecond and a photon leaving it and returning to it?

Clouds.
What if a planet was completely covered with clouds of H2O?
Venus is nearly completely covered with clouds of sulfuric acid- and it
seems if there was enough water on Venus those sulfuric acid clouds
couldn’t exist and could be replaced with global coverage of clouds of
H2O.

In the radiant model of the greenhouse theory there isn’t much difference between a planet covered with clouds and planet cover with snow.
The biggest difference is clouds are in the sky and snow is on the ground.
One might think that the biggest difference is in temperature, but clouds in the sky are generally quite cold.
A cloud at 10,000 meters. At Lapse rate of 6 C per 1000 meter would be
60 K colder than the surface air- and surface air is never as high as 60 C.

Clouds tend to lower than 30,000′ but they can get much higher than this.
“Thunderstorms result from the rapid upward movement of warm, moist air. They can occur inside warm, moist air masses and at fronts. As the warm, moist air moves upward, it cools, condenses, and forms cumulonimbus clouds that can reach heights of over 20 km (12.45 miles).”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderstorm
Clouds can be warmer than snow, but their temperatures are not the the big
difference.
Other than the difference in elevation, clouds generally have smaller droplets of water or ice- without strong updrafts rain size droplets would fall
out of the sky. Powder snow is greatly desired by skiers, and it has larger size particles than a cloud. Powder snow blow around a fair amount but if was as fine grain as a cloud it would blow off the mountain- and idea snow boarding a cloud has various challenges- probably an extreme sport which is far too lethal. But sky boarding is a newer sport- who knows what madness will be attempted.

So most assume a snow covered Earth would locked into a frozen hell, and
I suppose the same could said about world completely covered with clouds.

But clouds and snow are made of water and are similar to liquid water.
I would say that liquid water is the true “greenhouse effect”- sunlight passes
thru a surface and the energy is trapped.
Snow has easily defined surface, and sunlight passed thru it. And sunlight passes thru the boundary of a cloud.
One could say the difference between a planet entirely covered with water, and snow and a rain cloud is a difference of scale.

A sphere of water is transparent if sunlight intersects at high angle [sun near zenith] but about 1/2 of surface of hemisphere it lower angle.
The area of high angle is 9am to 3 pm and makes a circle on Earth which 10,000 km in diameter. A 10,000 km disk has about 78.5 million square km. Earth has 510 million square km. A hemisphere is 1/2-
so 255 million square km.
So the diameter of Earth is 12,756 km. But it’s circumference is 40,000 km and half of that distance is the hemisphere.

Other than scale the other main difference is planet size drop of water blocks all sunlight from passing thru it. With the smaller droplets the sunlight passes thru and is bend from diffraction with the liquid as light passes thru it
So a cloud or pile of snow is more reflective than water [unless sunlight is hitting the water at low angle- and the angle the sun hits a cloud or snow doesn’t make as much difference] but sunlight can pass thru meters of cloud or snow.
So if accept that water is the true “greenhouse effect”- it traps heat.
And there isn’t anything that works as good as water as greenhouse effect, snow and clouds must also work in a similar fashion. In other words snow and clouds may not be as good a water at causing this greenhouse effect, but to some degree they would function like water.

And since water doesn’t work well at trapping heat when the sunlight at low angle [a significant portion of sunlight is reflected] clouds and snow
when the sunlight is low angle may more comparable to water. Or more cloud or snow at high latitudes may be more of a warming effect as compared to water. Whereas snow at lower latitude as compared to water are more of a cooling effect.
But in general terms snow and clouds are a warming effect, and not the cooling effects as imagined in terms planetary heat budgets.
Snow is more a symptom of cooler weather rather than a cause- though snow build up in low latitudes would result more sunlight reflected and less trapped heat [as compared to water].

Clouds are different as compared to snow because they at higher elevation, and adding to atmospheric heat at higher elevation is an additional warming effect.
The oceans of water in the skies of the tropics is important factor in global climate.

To review water is a greenhouse effect due to it’s transparency to shortwave radiation, coupled with fact that water has low conductivity
and conductivity rate is dependent the difference of heat or temperature
of material.
[Not about convective of heat due to differences of buoyancy]. Conductivity of water:
Water 0.58
Snow (temp < 0oC) 0.05 – 0.25
Ice (0oC, 32oF) 2.18
Rock, solid 2 – 7
Iron 80
Copper 401http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html

The system of Peer Review in Open Media (PROM) adopted on the Principia Scientific International website is, I believe, by far the best way to encourage debate and open discussion. For example, there is already opened a forum thread for discussion of my new paper which is expected to be ready for the PROM menu very soon now. This 20 page paper takes a sledge hammer to the greenhouse. I guess it will be OK to copy the Abstract and Conclusions here to whet your appetite …
. .

PLANETARY CORE AND SURFACE TEMPERATURES

ABSTRACT

The paper explains why the physics involved in atmospheric and sub-surface heat transfer appears to have been misunderstood, and incorrectly applied, when postulating that a radiative “greenhouse effect” is responsible for warming the surfaces of planets such as Venus and our own Earth.

A detailed discussion of the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics endeavours to settle the much debated issue as to whether of not a thermal gradient evolves spontaneously in still air in a gravitational field. The author is aware of attempted rebuttals of this hypothesis, but cogent counter arguments are presented, together with reference to empirical evidence.

The ramifications are substantial, in that they eliminate any need for any “greenhouse” explanation as to why the surface temperatures are as observed. No other valid reason appears plausible to explain how the required energy gets into the planetary surfaces, this being especially obvious in regard to the high temperatures measured at the surface of the crust of Venus.

The paper includes some counter-intuitive concepts which sceptical readers may be tempted to reject out of hand. Physics sometimes has some surprises, and so you are encouraged to read and understand the argument step by step, for it is based on sound physics, and unlocks some mysteries of the Solar System, including core and mantle temperatures, not previously explained in this manner to the best of the author’s knowledge.

…..

16. CONCLUSIONS

When Maxwell and Boltzmann dismissed Loschmidt’s postulate of a gravity gradient they did the world a great disservice, and they contributed to a belief in a non-existent warming by an imaginary radiative greenhouse effect. The subsequent “calls to authority” should be a lesson for all in the scientific world, for this has resulted in an absolute travesty of physics. The greenhouse conjecture will inevitably take its brief place in history as the biggest and most costly mistake ever in the field of human scientific endeavour. Hopefully that will be soon.

Scientists, be they climatologists, physicist or whatever, need to step outside the square and to adopt a paradigm shift based on, and supported by 21st century science. Dr Hans Jelbring and Roderich Graeff have each made significant contributions which must now be heeded before the mistake is perpetuated by those who now have personal vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

Climate has in fact been following natural cycles [28] as shown in the Appendix to the author’s paper on Radiated Energy [2] and the world can expect a period of about 500 years of cooling to start within 50 to 200 years from now.

The Loschmidt gravity-induced thermal gradient is more than enough to explain the proverbial “33 degrees of warming” and in fact the dry adiabatic lapse rate would lead to a mean surface temperature of about 25°C were it not for water vapour and, yes, to a much smaller extent, carbon dioxide reducing the gradient and causing lower base surface temperatures. In the Appendix is an outline of methodology that would almost certainly produce studies which would demonstrate the cooling effect of water in locations around the world.

Thermal energy can and does “creep” up the very shallow thermal gradients in planetary atmospheres and also in their solid crusts and mantles, supporting sub-surface temperatures. Indeed the physics of “heat creep” resolves the long-term puzzles of planetary core and surface temperatures, and, for this very reason, begs attention and claims validity for this 21st century new paradigm shift in climate change science. [29]

In your brief estimate “Will the Ice Age Stop Global Warming?”, you add a concluding remark:

it is so simple, I cannot see what I may have missed.

Let me suggest that you may have “missed” the following:
– the upper atmospheric CO2 limit from human fossil fuel consumption is around 980 ppmv as constrained by fossil fuel availability per optimistic WEC 2010 estimates of remaining fossil fuels on our planet in 2008 (85% of all fossil fuels that were ever on our planet were still in place and recoverable).

The first 15% got us from 280 ppmv (estimated in 1750) to 385 ppmv (Mauna Loa in 2008), so the remaining 85% could get us to an absolute maximum CO2 level of:

385 + 0.85*(385-280) / 0.15 = 980 ppmv

You state that at a low estimate of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 1.2C, we could have had a 1.2C rise from 1750 to 2050 (CO2 increase from en estimated 280 ppmv in 1750 to a guessed 580 ppmv by 2050 or 0.04C per decade.

At the latest, somewhat higher 2xCO2 CS estimates of around 1.5C, this would be 0.05C average warming from CO2 since 1750.

Let’s say 1.5C warming from 1750 to 2050.

But 1750 was a long time ago and the 0.7C GH warming we have already seen since then has been no problem at all, so let’s start with today rather than with 1750.

And let’s forget your rather arbitrary “guess-timate” of 580 ppmv CO2 by 2050 and instead look at the absolute maximum GH warming from human fossil fuel combustion, or an atmospheric CO2 level of 980 ppmv. That’s it, doc – there is no more (and we surely will not reach this level anytime within the next 200 years).

So from 2013 to 2213 we would theoretically have seen GH warming from human fossil fiuel combustion of .

1.5 * ln(980/393) / ln(2) = 2.0C

That’s it. Fossil fuels are all gone by then (if this ever truly occurs in real life).

So the question to be answered is:

”Will the Ice Age Stop Global Warming over the next 200 years or so?”

The answer to this question appears to be “NO”, based on your estimate of Ice Age cooling of 0.017C per decade (over 5,000 years).

BUT, since the CO2 warming has an absolute limit of 2.0C and the Ice Age cooling is 500*0.017 or 8.5C, it means that Global Warming will only temporarily stop an Ice Age (if one is coming), as limited by total fossil fuels still available.

For those skeptics who have been celebrating the death of the CAGW one way train to the economic abyss:

From the State of the Union address (and for those of you not keeping score, when it comes to radically changing the U.S., Obama has meant every word he has said):

“But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. (Applause.) Now, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods — all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science — and act before it’s too late. (Applause.)

Now, the good news is we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to get together, pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. (Applause.) I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.

Four years ago, other countries dominated the clean energy market and the jobs that came with it. And we’ve begun to change that. Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America. So let’s generate even more. Solar energy gets cheaper by the year — let’s drive down costs even further. As long as countries like China keep going all in on clean energy, so must we.”

The reports of CAGW’s death, like that of Mark Twain’s, has been greatly exaggerated.

Here are the first two of 18 sections in my new paper, Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures, and you will be able to read the rest of the 20 page paper next week on the Principia Scientific International website in the PROM menu …

1. Radiation and Heat Transfer

Historical records indicate that the world has experienced long-term periods of about 500 years of alternating warming and cooling. The last two thousand years have seen the Roman Warming Period, the Dark Ages Cooling, the Medieval Warming Period, the Little Ice Age and the current warming period. So we have a long-term cycle which appears to cause variations of about 2°C up and down over each 500 year period of alternate warming and cooling. Then, superimposed on this are shorter periods of about 30 years of more rapid warming and cooling, which were discussed in the Appendix of the author’s paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics [1] published in March, 2012 on the Principia Scientific International (PSI) website.

In the 30 years from around 1969 to 1998 (inclusive) both the short-term and the long term cycles were increasing simultaneously. The overall rate of warming was not very different from that experienced 60 years earlier, but it was seen to be a cause for alarm. In the 1980’s there was talk of a “greenhouse effect” which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) describes as a process in which “greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system.” They then postulate that “infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, -19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere …” [2]

So they say, but the physics of heat transfer is not easily understood and, in particular, we should not assume either that radiating gases increase the opacity, or that spontaneous radiation from a cold atmosphere will add extra thermal energy to a warmer region of the Earth’s surface. This is discussed at length in the above-mentioned paper and it is recommended that the reader pause to read Sections 1 to 5 and the Appendix thereof.

2. The Problems with the Greenhouse Conjecture

The so called Greenhouse Effect is based on the concept that the Sun warms the surface of a planet and then that surface cools at a rate governed by the composition of the atmosphere. The rate of cooling is thought to have something to do with the amount of upwelling radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, and/or the amount of energy which then returns to the surface by way of radiation.

But, quite apart from radiation, heat is also transferred from the surface to the atmosphere by non-radiative processes. Then nitrogen and oxygen molecules play the main role of insulating the surface, whilst water vapour and carbon dioxide help to radiate energy out of the atmosphere, and thus have an overall cooling effect, as we shall see in later sections.

It is indeed correct to say that radiation from the atmosphere does slow the component of surface cooling which is itself by radiation. But, at the same time, the presence of all air molecules just above the surface will also have a somewhat greater effect slowing the cooling of the surface. Molecules of a gas move around freely between impacts with others, and energy is transferred into these molecules as they collide with the surface. So ordinary nitrogen and oxygen molecules also have an insulating role, and the closer the temperatures get between the surface and these air molecules, the more they will slow the cooling process. They are the real blanket, for the very reason that they do not radiate much at typical temperatures found in the troposphere. Instead, it is water vapour and other radiating molecules like carbon dioxide which radiate energy out of the atmosphere and thus act like holes in the blanket, as you may read in an article The Greenhouse Gas Blanket that Fails to Warm the World [3] to which the author contributed.

Radiation from a cooler region of the atmosphere affects radiative cooling of the surface because it provides electro-magnetic energy for some of the “quota” of radiation which the surface is emitting. But this means that this portion of the radiation is not actually transferring thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere. Hence the rate of cooling by radiation will indeed be slowed, as is well documented in Physics, but much of the radiation coming from the surface is merely returning electro-magnetic energy which was in the back radiation from the atmosphere.

Of all the thermal energy transferred from the surface to the atmosphere, about a third is by way of radiation, as this NASA energy budget diagram [4] shows. There you will see that only 15% of the original incoming Solar energy is transferred by radiation which is absorbed by the atmosphere, whereas twice as much is transferred by non-radiative processes, namely 7% by conduction and 23% by latent heat, which is energy stored in water vapour.

As will be explained in later sections, it is the effect of gravity that does the bulk of the warming by spreading energy in the atmosphere and creating a thermal gradient. All this cooling of the surface is merely a marginal process which holds back the small amount of extra energy which is absorbed when the Sun shines, and is then transferred back to the atmosphere. Meanwhile, an underlying stable base thermal profile in the atmosphere ensures that air near the surface cannot cool or warm too much, and nor can the surface.

It will also be noted that 19% of the Sun’s incident radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds, thus warming the atmosphere. This is more than the 15% which is absorbed by the atmosphere from surface radiation, yet some greenhouse proponents say the atmosphere is “transparent” to Solar radiation and “opaque” to IR radiation from the surface.

Now, calculations using standard physics show that direct Solar radiation, such as that received by Earth’s surface, could not have raised the mean surface temperature by the observed amount. This is even more obvious on the planet Venus, because the surface there receives barely 10% of the Solar radiation that Earth’s surface receives. and yet it has been measured at over 450°C. So there appears to be something very wrong in the assumption that the surface of a planet is 33°C warmer purely because the atmosphere slows the rate of cooling. If the Sun cannot raise the surface to a higher temperature first, we have to ask, “cooling from what?”

1. (a) sunspot numbers and (b) square root of sunspot numbers. Remember that the geomagnetic indices have a power law distribution. And recall the V^2 term in BV^2.

2. 5.5-year full-width-at-half-max (FWHM) gaussian-smoothed second order central differences of (a) sunspot numbers and (b) the base 2 logarithm of sunspot numbers. This focuses attention on cycle components only — but note well that the same changepoint dates get emphasized as in (1).

Note the switching of the annual track from boreal winter to boreal summer. Those patterns are measured from nothing other than sunspot numbers, confirming what Mursula & Zieger (2001) found in geomagnetic aa index. Their paper is a landmark classic.

By the way, here’s what happens when you tidy up the middle panel of their figure 3 by using multi-extent complex wavelets to summarize the hierarchically cyclically-structured volatility:

“The conclusion is made on the basis of our analysis, that a simple stepwise correction of aa around the time when instrumental change or site-relocation took place may not result in a proper correction of aa. A correction of this kind may introduce a large and uncalculated uncertainty, making it harder to detect and to understand the true cause of the discrepancy among geomagnetic indices.”

I wasn’t in any way involved in this journal paper published in “Global and Planetary Change” (Vol. 100, Jan 2013) and I only learnt of it today. The implication appears to be that warmer temperatures cause the release of more carbon dioxide from the oceans, this happening about 9 to 11 months later.

Note that in the Appendix of my paper is a small study of the relationship between daily maximum and minimum temperatures versus precipitation and, not at all surprisingly, we see that drier cities have slightly higher minimums and significantly higher maximums. I know this is a small sample of only 15 inland tropical cities, and I intend to do a larger one after my open heart surgery on March 8th – if I’m still on the planet.

The cooling by water vapour is due to the fact that it reduces the absolute magnitude of the thermal gradient (AKA wet adiabatic lapse rate) and so, when radiative equilibrium is established, the supported surface temperature is lower. Only at the margin does water vapour slow radiative cooling (not non-radiative) between day and night for example. But this is a negligible effect compared with about a 7 to 8 degree lowering of surface temperatures.

In a nutshell, the 255K figure is inaccurate for a start. It needs to be adjusted downwards when treating the Earth as a rotating sphere (rather than flat) and then adjusted upwards because of lower emissivity of the atmosphere. The net effect brings it to about 270K. Then the autonomous gravitationally induced thermal gradient (necessitated as a corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics) adds about 25 degrees in a dry world, but water vapour reduces this by about 7 or 8 degrees so that we get back to14 or 15 deg.C.